Warm glow in charitable auctions: Are the WEIRDos driving the results?

Remoundou, Kyriaki and Drichoutis, Andreas and Koundouri, Phoebe (2010): Warm glow in charitable auctions: Are the WEIRDos driving the results?

Abstract

Running conventional laboratory experiments (i.e., with a standard student subject pool) is common practice in economic experiments especially when methodological issues are explored. However, generalization of the results from such experiments to the entire population is subject to severe critique. In this study we investigate warm glow in charitable auctions in a conventional lab experiment and an artefactual field experiment (i.e., lab experiment using subjects from the general population). The auction is constructed in a way to isolate warm glow by donating the sum of revenues by highest bidders to an environmental charity of subjects’ choice. Contributions motivated by pure altruism were eliminated by keeping constant the total amount the charity would receive. Results for the two subject pools are at complete odds. There is ample evidence of warm glow in the student subject pool but none in the consumer subject pool. Our findings suggest that conclusions from conventional lab experiments may not be immediately transferable to the general population.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: warm glow; charitable auctions; lab experiment; WEIRDos
• Subjects: Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q52 - Pollution Control Adoption and Costs ; Distributional Effects ; Employment Effects; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments > C92 - Laboratory, Group Behavior; D - Microeconomics > D4 - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design > D44 - Auctions

References

Andreoni, J. ,1989. Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence. Journal of Political Economy 97, 1447–1458.

Carlsson, F., Martinsson, P., 2001. Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 41, 179-192.

Carpenter, J.P., Burks, S., Verhoogen, E, 2004. Comparing Students to Workers: The Effects of Social Framing on Behavior in Distribution Game. IZA Discussion Paper No. 1341.

Cleave, B.L., Nikiforakis, N., Slonim, R., 2010. Is There Selection Bias in Laboratory Experiments? The University of Melbourne Working Paper Series. Research Paper Number 1106.

Corrigan, J.R., Rousu, M.C. , 2006. The Effect of Initial Endowments in Experimental Auctions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88 (2), 448-547.

Crumpler, H., Grossman, P.J., 2008. An experimental test of warm glow giving. Journal of Public Economics 92, 1011–1021.

Depositario, D.P.T., Nayga, R.M.,Jr., Wu, X., Laude, T.P., 2009. Should students be used as subjects in experimental auctions? Economics Letters 102, 122–124

Drichoutis, A. C., Nayga, R. M., Jr., 2010. Marginal changes in random parameters ordered response models with interaction terms. Econometric Reviews (forthcoming)

Eckel, C.E., Grossman, P.J., 2000. Volunteers and pseudo-volunteers, The effect of recruitment method in dictator experiments. Experimental Economics 3, 107-120.

Enis, B.M., Cox, K.K., Stafford, J.E., 1972. Students as Subjects in Consumer Behavior Experiments. Journal of Marketing Research 9 (1), 72-74

Fischbacher, U., 2007. z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics 10, 171–178.

Gächter, S., Herrmann, B., Thöni, C., 2004. Trust, voluntary cooperation, and socio-economic background: survey and experimental evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organisation 55, 505-531.

Haigh, M. S., List, J. A., 2005. Do professional traders exhibit myopic loss aversion? An experimental analysis. The Journal of Finance, 60, 523–534.

Harbaugh, W.T., Mayr, U., Burghart, D.R., 2007. Neural responses to taxation and voluntary giving reveal motives for charitable donations. Science 316, 1622-1625.

Harrison, G.W., Lau, M.I., Rutström, E.E., 2009. Risk attitudes, randomization to treatment, and self-selection into experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 70(3), 498-507.

Harrison, G. W., 2006. Experimental evidence on alternative environmental valuation methods. Environmental & Resource Economics 36,125 162.

Harrison, G.W., List, J.A., 2004. Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature 42(4),1009-1055.

Harrison, G. W., Harstad, R.M., Rutstrom., E. E. ,2004. Experimental methods and elicitation of values. Experimental Economics 7 (2),123-140.

Healy, A., 2009. How effectively do people learn from a variety of different opinions? Experimental Economics 12, 386–416.

Henrich, J., Heine, S.J., Norenzayan, A., 2010. The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33, 61–135

Isaac, R., Pevnitskaya, S., Salmon, T., 2010. Do preferences for charitable giving help auctioneers? Experimental Economics 13(1), 14-44.

Isoni, A., Loomes, G., Sugden, R., 2010. The Willingness to Pay-Willingness to Accept Gap, the "Endowment Effect", Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations:, A Reassessment (forthcoming American Economic Review)

Levitt, S.D., List, J.A., 2007. What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World? Journal of Economic Perspectives 21, 153–74.

Lusk, J.L., Shogren, J.,F., 2007. Experimental Auctions: Methods and Applications in Economic and Marketing Research. Cambridge University Press, UK.

Lusk, J.L., Rousu, M., 2006. Market price endogeneity and accuracy of value elicitation mechanisms. In List, J.A. (Ed.) Using experimental methods in environmental and resource economics: Edward Elgar.

Lusk, J.L., Mustafa, J., Kurlander, L., Roucan, M., Taulman, L., 2005. A meta-analysis of genetically modified food valuation studies. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 30 (1), 28–44.

McNemar, Q., 1946. Opinion-Attitude Methodology. Psychological Bulletin 43, 289-374.

Nunes, P.A.L.D., Schokkaert, E., 2003. Identifying the warm glow effect in contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45, 231–245.

Peterson, R.A., 2001. On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a second-order meta-analysis. The Journal of Consumer Research 28 (3), 450-461.

Plott, C.R., Zeiler, K., 2005. The willingness to pay–willingness to accept gap, the "endowment effect" subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations. American Economic Review, 95(3), 530–545.

Rutstrom, E.E.,1998. Home-grown values and incentive compatible auction design. International Journal of Game Theory 27, 427-441.

Shogren, J.F., Cho, S., Koo, C., List, J.A., Park, C., Polo, P., Wilhelmi, R., 2001. Auction mechanisms and the measurement of WTP and WTA. Resource and Energy Economics 23 (2),.97-109.

Shogren, J.F., Margolis, M., Koo, C., List, J.A., 2001. A random nth-price auction Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 46 (4),409-421.

Spencer, M.A., Swallow, S.K. Miller, C.J., 1998. Valuing water quality monitoring: A contingent valuation experiment involving hypothetical and real payments. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 27(1), 28-42.