Using an incentivized experiment with statistical power, this paper explores the role of stakes in charitable giving of lottery prizes, where subjects commit to donate a fraction of the prize before they learn the outcome of the lottery. We study three stake levels: 5€ (n = 177), 100€ (n = 168), and 1,000€ (n = 171). Although the donations increase in absolute terms as the stakes increase, subjects decrease the donated fraction of the pie. However, people still share roughly 20% of 1,000€, an amount as high as the average monthly salary of people at the age of our subjects. The number of people sharing 50% of the pie is remarkably stable across stakes, but donating the the whole pie-the modal behavior in charity-donation experiments-disappears with stakes. Such hyper-altruistic behavior thus seems to be an artifact of the stakes typically employed in economic and psychological experiments. Our findings point out that sharing with others is a prevalent human feature, but stakes are an important determinant of sharing. Policies promoted via prosocial frames (e.g., stressing the effects of mask-wearing or social distancing on others during the Covid-19 pandemic or environmentally-friendly behaviors on future generations) may thus be miscalibrated if they disregard the stakes at play.

CERGE EI Prague Czech Republic

Department of Economic Analysis University of the Basque Country UPV EHU Bilbao Spain

Department of Economics Universidad Loyola Andalucía Córdoba Spain

Faculty of Arts University of West Bohemia Pilsen Czech Republic

Loyola Behavioral Lab Universidad Loyola Andalucía Córdoba Spain

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Fehr E, Fischbacher U. The nature of human altruism. Nature. 2003;425(6960):785–791. doi: 10.1038/nature02043 PubMed DOI

Henrich J, Boyd R, Bowles S, Camerer C, Fehr E, Gintis H, et al.. “Economic man” in cross-cultural perspective: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2005;28(6):795–815. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X05000142 PubMed DOI

Kaplan H, Gurven M, Hill K, Hurtado A. The Natural History of Human Food Sharing and Cooperation: A Review and a New Multi-Individual Approach to the Negotiation of Norms. In: Gintis H, Bowles S, Boyd R, Fehr E, editors. Moral Sentiments and Material Interests: On the Foundations of Cooperation in Economic Life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2005. p. 75–113.

Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH. Fairness and the assumptions of economics. Journal of business. 1986; p. S285–S300. doi: 10.1086/296367 DOI

Brañas-Garza Pablo. Poverty in dictator games: Awakening solidarity. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 2006;60(3):306–320. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2004.10.005 DOI

Engel C. Dictator games: a meta study. Experimental Economics. 2011;14(4):583–610. doi: 10.1007/s10683-011-9283-7 DOI

Kovářík, Jaromír. Risk and Knightian Uncertainty. In Altman,M., editor. Real-World Decision Making: An Encyclopedia of Behavioral Economics. 2015; pages:643–669- ABC-Clio.

Trautmann Stefan T and Van De Kuilen Gijs. Ambiguity attitudes. The Wiley Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making. 2015; 1:89–116. Wiley-Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781118468333.ch3 DOI

Ellsberg D. Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1961;75(4):643–669. doi: 10.2307/1884324 DOI

Kovářík Jaromír and Levin Dan and Wang Tao. Ellsberg paradox: Ambiguity and complexity aversions compared. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 2016;52(1):47–64. doi: 10.1007/s11166-016-9232-0 DOI

Abdellaoui Mohammed and Klibanoff Peter and Placido Lætitia. Experiments on compound risk in relation to simple risk and to ambiguity. Management Science. 2015;61(6):1306–1322. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2014.1953 DOI

Halevy Yoram. Ellsberg revisited: An experimental study. Econometrica. 2007;75(2):503–536. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00755.x DOI

Wakker Peter P. Prospect theory: For risk and ambiguity. Cambridge university press. 2010.

Levitt SD, List JA. What do laboratory experiments tell us about the real world. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2005;21(2):153–174. doi: 10.1257/jep.21.2.153 DOI

Giving USA. Giving USA 2020: The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2019. Researched and written by the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy; 2020. Available from: ℌhttps://givingusa.orgℍ.

Leibbrandt A, Maitra P, Neelim A. On the redistribution of wealth in a developing country: Experimental evidence on stake and framing effects. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 2015;118:360–371. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2015.02.015 DOI

List JA, Cherry TL. Examining the role of fairness in high stakes allocation decisions. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 2008;65(1):1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2003.09.021 DOI

Novakova J, Flegr J. How Much Is Our Fairness Worth? The Effect of Raising Stakes on Offers by Proposers and Minimum Acceptable Offers in Dictator and Ultimatum Games. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(4):e60966. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060966 PubMed DOI PMC

Raihani NJ, Mace R, Lamba S. The effect of $1, $5 and $10 stakes in an online dictator game. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(8):e73131. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073131 PubMed DOI PMC

Carpenter J, Verhoogen E, Burks S. The effect of stakes in distribution experiments. Economics Letters. 2005;86(3):393–398. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2004.08.007 DOI

Andersen S, Gneezy U, Kajackaite A, Marx J. Allowing for reflection time does not change behavior in dictator and cheating games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 2018;145:24–33. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2017.10.012 DOI

Dana J, Weber RA, Kuang JX. Exploiting moral wiggle room: experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness. Economic Theory. 2007;33(1):67–80. doi: 10.1007/s00199-006-0153-z DOI

Krupka EL, Weber RA. Identifying social norms using coordination games: Why does dictator game sharing vary? Journal of the European Economic Association. 2013;11(3):495–524. doi: 10.1111/jeea.12006 DOI

Haisley EC, Weber RA. Self-serving interpretations of ambiguity in other-regarding behavior. Games and Economic Behavior. 2010;68(2):614–625. doi: 10.1016/j.geb.2009.08.002 DOI

Brock JM, Lange A, Ozbay EY. Dictating the risk: Experimental evidence on giving in risky environments. The American Economic Review. 2013;103(1):415–37. doi: 10.1257/aer.103.1.415 DOI

Exley CL. Excusing selfishness in charitable giving: The role of risk. The Review of Economic Studies. 2015;83(2):587–628. doi: 10.1093/restud/rdv051 DOI

Cettolin E, Riedl A, Tran G. Giving in the face of risk. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 2017;55(2-3):95–118. doi: 10.1007/s11166-017-9270-2 DOI

Garcia T, Massoni S, Villeval MC. Ambiguity and excuse-driven behavior in charitable giving. European Economic Review. 2020;103412.

Kappes A, Nussberger AM, Faber NS, Kahane G, Savulescu J, Crockett MJ. Uncertainty about the impact of social decisions increases prosocial behaviour. Nature Human Behaviour. 2018;2(8):573–580. doi: 10.1038/s41562-018-0372-x PubMed DOI PMC

Gino F, Norton MI, Weber RA. Motivated Bayesians: Feeling moral while acting egoistically. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2016;30(3):189–212. doi: 10.1257/jep.30.3.189 DOI

Bergmüller R, Schürch R, Hamilton IM. Evolutionary causes and consequences of consistent individual variation in cooperative behaviour. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2010;365(1553):2751–2764. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0124 PubMed DOI PMC

Kurzban R, Houser D. Experiments investigating cooperative types in humans: A complement to evolutionary theory and simulations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2005;102(5):1803–1807. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0408759102 PubMed DOI PMC

Peysakhovich A, Nowak MA, Rand DG. Humans display a ‘cooperative phenotype’that is domain general and temporally stable. Nature Communications. 2014;5(1):1–8. doi: 10.1038/ncomms5939 PubMed DOI

Poncela-Casasnovas J, Gutiérrez-Roig M, Gracia-Lázaro C, Vicens J, Gómez-Gardeñes J, Perelló J, et al.. Humans display a reduced set of consistent behavioral phenotypes in dyadic games. Science Advances. 2016;2(8):e1600451. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1600451 PubMed DOI PMC

Anderhub V, Müller R, Schmidt C. Design and evaluation of an economic experiment via the Internet. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 2001;46(2):227–247. doi: 10.1016/S0167-2681(01)00195-0 DOI

Horton JJ, Rand DG, Zeckhauser RJ. The online laboratory: Conducting experiments in a real labor market. Experimental Economics. 2011;14(3):399–425. doi: 10.1007/s10683-011-9273-9 DOI

Arechar AA, Gächter S, Molleman L. Conducting interactive experiments online. Experimental Economics. 2018;21(1):99–131. doi: 10.1007/s10683-017-9527-2 PubMed DOI PMC

Branas-Garza P, Jorrat DA, Alfonso A, Espin AM, García T, Kovarik J. Exposure to the Covid-19 pandemic and generosity in southern Spain. PsyArXiv. 2020;. PubMed PMC

INE. Instituto Nacional de Estadística. Madrid, Spain.: retrieved from https://www.ine.es; 2020.

Aguiar Fernando and Brañas-Garza Pablo and Cobo-Reyes Ramón and Jimenez Natalia and Miller Luis M. Are women expected to be more generous?. Experimental Economics. 2009;12(1):93–98. doi: 10.1007/s10683-008-9199-z DOI

Croson Rachel and Gneezy Uri. Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature. 2009;47(2):448–474. doi: 10.1257/jel.47.2.448 DOI

Brañas-Garza Pablo and Capraro Valerio and Rascon-Ramirez Ericka. Gender differences in altruism on Mechanical Turk: Expectations and actual behaviour. Economics Letters. 2018;170:19–23. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2018.05.022 DOI

Espinosa María Paz and Kovářík Jaromír. Prosocial behavior and gender. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. 2015;9:88. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00088 PubMed DOI PMC