Toward an Understanding of the Economics of Charity: Evidence from a Field Experiment

By Craig E. Landry, Andreas Lange, John A. List, Michael K. Price, Nicholas G. Rupp. 2006

410 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Safety Research, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5678790bcf8e69783c0cbab261a163cf31cefc87

How researchers see this paper

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

In Economics and Econometrics

In Safety Research

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Persuasion: Empirical Evidence (2010, positive): “Landry et al. (2006) conduct a door-to-door campaign to fund-raise for a capital campaign at East Carolina University.”
A field study on cooperativeness and impatience in the Tragedy of the Commons (2011, positive): “In addition, the field experiments by Landry et al. (2006) and DellaVigna, List, Malmendier (2009) suggest that charitable donations are not necessarily a consequence of altruism, but are often motivated by status concerns or social pressure.”
Matched Fundraising: Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment (2010, neutral): “3 or challenge gift, can influence charitable giving [List and Lucking-Reiley 2002, Rondeau and List 2003, Landry et al 2006, Potters et al 2007].”
Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: Evidence from voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica (2008, neutral): “As shown by Landry et al. (2006), contributions are positively correlated with the physical attractiveness of female solicitors for male contributors.”
Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field (2009, positive): “Charitable giving is increasing in the seed money (List and Lucking-Reiley 2002) presumably because of signaling of quality of the charity, and in the attractiveness of female solicitors for door-to-door fund-raising, especially for male respondents (Landry et al. 2006).”
When are Women More Generous than Men (2007, neutral): “within the firm? Based upon a field experiment, Landry, Lange, List, Price, and Rupp (2005) find that”
Design of Stated Preference Surveys: Is There More to Learn from Behavioral Economics? (2010, neutral): “, 2008; Frey and Meier, 2004; Shang and Croson, 2006), and the characteristics of the interviewer/solicitor (Bateman and Mawby, 2004; Landry et al., 2006).”
Does Price Matter in Charitable Giving? Evidence from a Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment (2007, positive): “Landry et al. 2006). Andreoni (1998) uses a neat theoretical construct to explore a different effect of seed money in threshold public good provisioning: his model of charitable giving has multiple equilibria, and in the absence of seed money there exists a Nash equilibrium with zero charitable givi”
Taste, information, and asset prices: implications for the valuation of CSR (2016, neutral): “Even with non-zero cash flows, the assets we model could represent lotteries designed for charitable fund-raising (see, e.g., Landry et al. 2006; Lange et al. 2007).”
A Greater Price for a Greater Good? Evidence that Consumers Pay More for Charity-Linked Products (2010, positive): “Examining efforts to generate a public good (rather than sell a private one), Morgan and Sefton (2000) and Landry et al. (2006) both provide experimental evidence that lotteries can generate more charity revenue than solicited direct donations.”
The power of asking: How communication affects selfishness, empathy, and altruism (2011, neutral): “However, in our daily lives we are exposed to inequality regularly, but take costly actions to lessen it only in special circumstances, such as when asked to give a charitable donation (Andreoni and Payne, 2003; Landry et al., 2006) or observed by an audience (Andreoni and Bernheim, 2009).”
A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions and tournaments (2014, neutral): “…et al. 2007; Orzen 2008; Corazzini et al. 2010), and different types of winner-pay auctions (Davis et al. 2006; Schram and Onderstal 2009).27 There are also some studies that take experimental charity contests to the field: Landry et al. (2006), Carpenter et al. (2008) and Onderstal et al. (2013).”
A Literature Review of Empirical Studies of Philanthropy (2010, neutral): “Perceived efficacy is a likely explanation for the effects of leadership donations and seed money that have been studied extensively by economists (Andreoni & Petrie, 2004; Bac & Bag, 2003; Chen et al., 2006; Landry et al., 2006; List & Lucking-Reiley, 2002; List & Rondeau, 2003; Potters, Sefton, & ”
Do fairness and race matter in generosity? Evidence from a nationally representative charity experiment (2011, neutral): “We see our paper as complementary to field experiments, which typically meet all desiderata except the third (Frey and Meier, 2004; Croson and Shang, 2009; Landry et al., 2006; Falk, 2007; Karlan and List, 2007; Eckel and Grossman, 2008; DellaVigna et al., 2009; List and Price, 2009; Meer, 2009).”
Crowding Out and Crowding In of Private Donations and Government Grants (2014, neutral): “Landry et al. (2006) also find some evidence that seed money increases others’ contributions, but they find a stronger effect from being entered in a lottery for a cash prize when donating and from the physical attractiveness of the person Heutel 169”