4.6 Article

Framing in multiple public goods games and donation to charities

期刊

ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE
卷 8, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsos.202117

关键词

evolutionary game theory; cooperation; altruism; experiments

资金

  1. MINECO (Spain)
  2. FEDER funds [FIS2017-87519-P, FJCI-2016-28276]
  3. Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovacion y Universidades/FEDER (Spain/UE) [PGC2018-098186-B-I00]
  4. Comunidad de Madrid [PRACTICO-CM]
  5. Comunidad de Madrid/Universidad Carlos III de Madrid [CAVTIONS-CM-UC3M]
  6. Comunidad de Aragon (Spain) [E36-20R]
  7. EU [317532, 640772]
  8. Spanish State Research Agency
  9. FEDER funds, through the Maria de Maeztu Program for Units of Excellence in RD [MDM-2017-0711, RTI2018093732-B-C22]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research has shown that contributions to public goods can be influenced by different framing conditions. Specifically, people are more willing to contribute when social donations are presented as indirect donations. Women tend to contribute more to public goods and donate more to charity compared to men.
The vast amount of research devoted to public goods games has shown that contributions may be dramatically affected by varying framing conditions. This is particularly relevant in the context of donations to charities and non-governmental organizations. Here, we design a multiple public goods experiment by introducing five types of funds, each differing in the fraction of the contribution that is donated to a charity. We found that people contribute more to public goods when the associated social donations are presented as indirect rather than as direct donations. At the same time, the fraction of the donations devoted to charity is not affected by the framing. We have also found that, on average, women contribute to public goods and donate to charity significantly more than men. These findings are of potential interest to the design of social investment tools, in particular for charities to ask for better institutional designs from policy makers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据