Anonymity in Giving in a Natural Context : A Field Experiment in 30 Churches

By A. Soetevent. 2005

342 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Demography, Safety Research, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1cb48447399676497914a6f665fa29bef9b04b05

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Demography

In Safety Research

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: Evidence from voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica (2008, background): “Soetevent (2005) investigated the role of anonymity in Dutch churches, using closed and open collection bags.”
Design of Stated Preference Surveys: Is There More to Learn from Behavioral Economics? (2010, background): “For example, the degree of anonymity in experiments is one potential measure of scrutiny, and a number of experiments show that the extent of pro-social behavior increases the less anonymous the decisions (see, e.g., List et al. 2004; Rege and Telle 2004; Soetevent 2005).”
The impact of buyer–seller relationships and reference prices on the effectiveness of the pay what you want pricing mechanism (2013, neutral): “Further research on donations described a pattern where people acted more pro-socially when they were in public compared to when they were in private (Andreoni and Petrie 2004; Soetevent 2005).”
Social Image and the 50-50 Norm: A Theoretical and Experimental Analysis of Audience Effects (2009, background): “More generally, studies of field data confirm that an audience increases charitable giving (Soetevent (2005)).”
Doing Good or Doing Well? Image Motivation and Monetary Incentives in Behaving Prosocially (2009, neutral): “Indeed, a number of field and laboratory studies have found such a pattern (for instance, Andreoni and Petrie, 2004; Dana, Cain, and Dawes, 2006; Rege and Telle, 2004; Soetevent, 2005).”
What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World (2007, background): “…use “open” rather than “closed” collection baskets, they are acting in a manner consistent with recognition of the importance of norms and scrutiny, as potential contributors can not only see the total amount already gathered, but neighbors can witness each others’ contributions (Soetevent, 2005).”
A Survey of Economic Theories and Field Evidence on Pro-Social Behavior (2006, neutral): “ Soetevent (2005) examined the role of anonymity in a field experiment in Dutch churches.”
How is Donation Behaviour Affected by the Donations of Others (2008, background): “However, recently economists have taken experiments out into the field in an attempt to study human behaviour in a more natural setting (List and Lucking-Reiley, 2002; Frey and Meier, 2004; Shang and Croson, 2005; Heldt, 2005; Soetevent, 2005).”
A Literature Review of Empirical Studies of Philanthropy (2010, background): “People are more generous after they have spent some time thinking about their own death (Jonas, Schimel, Greenberg, & Pyszczynski, 2002), about an act of forgiveness (Karremans, Lange, & Holland, 2005), or about things in life for which they are grateful (Soetevent, 2005).”
The Power of Shame and the Rationality of Trust (2007, background): “For variations in anonymity alone see Soetevent (2005) and the references therein.”
Self-signaling and social-signaling in giving (2015, background): “Tonin and Vlassopoulos (2013) find that subjects opt out of a probabilistic decision to give ex post and argue that this reflects a reduced signaling benefit stemming from the satiation of self-image motivation, as well as the increased cost of giving ex post.”
Fundraising through online social networks: A field experiment on peer-to-peer solicitation (2014, neutral): “Also, information on the giving decisions of others may be in ﬂ uential to the decision to donate (for some examples, see Frey and Meier, 2004; Shang and Croson, 2009; Andreoni and Petrie, 2004; Soetevent, 2005; Potters et al., 2007).”