Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-7g5wt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-14T18:21:12.063Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When does less information translate into more giving to public goods?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Billur Aksoy Open the ORCID record for Billur Aksoy [Opens in a new window]  and
Silvana Krasteva Open the ORCID record for Silvana Krasteva [Opens in a new window]
Billur Aksoy*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 12180, USA
Silvana Krasteva*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA
*
aksoyb3@rpi.edu
ssk8@tamu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper theoretically and experimentally investigates the impact of information provision on voluntary contributions to a linear public good with an uncertain marginal per-capita return (MPCR). Uninformed donors make contribution decisions based only on the expected MPCR (i.e. the prior distribution), while informed donors observe the realized MPCR before contributing. The theoretical analysis predicts that the impact of information on average contributions crucially depends on the generosity level of the population, modeled as a stochastic change in the pro-social preferences. In particular, a less generous population increases contributions substantially in response to good news of higher than expected MPCR and reduces contributions relatively little in response to bad news of lower than expected MPCR. The opposite is true for a more generous population. Thus, the theory predicts that information provision increases (reduces) average contributions when the population is less (more) generous. This prediction finds strong support in a two-stage lab experiment. The first stage measures subjects’ generosity in the public good game using an online experiment. The resulting measure is used to create more and less generous groups in the public good lab experiment, which varies the information provided to these groups in the lab. The findings are in line with the theoretical predictions, suggesting that targeted information provision to less generous groups may be more beneficial for public good contributions than uniform information provision.

Keywords

Information provisionLinear public good gameOther-regarding preferencesLab experiment

JEL classification

H41: Public Goods C90: General C72: Noncooperative Games
Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , December 2020 , pp. 1148 - 1177
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-020-09643-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Andreoni, J (2006). Leadership giving in charitable fundraising. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 8(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J, & Payne, AA (2013). Charitable giving. Handbook of Public economics, 5, 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arifovic, J, & Ledyard, J (2012). Individual evolutionary learning, other-regarding preferences, and the voluntary contributions mechanism. Journal of Public Economics, 96(9), 808–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbieri, S, & Malueg, DA (2008). Private provision of a discrete public good: Efficient equilibria in the private-information contribution game. Economic Theory, 37(1), 51–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbieri, S, & Malueg, DA (2010). Threshold uncertainty in the private-information subscription game. Journal of Public Economics, 94(11–12), 848–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, GE, & Ockenfels, A (2000). ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity and competition. American Economic Review, 90, 166–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boosey, L, Isaac, RM, Norton, D, & Stinn, J (2019). Cooperation, contributor types, and control questions. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 10.1016/j.socec.2019.101489Google Scholar
Boulu-Reshef, B, Brott, S, & Zylbersztejn, A (2017). Does uncertainty deter provision to the public good?. Revue économique, 68(5), 785–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandts, J, & Schram, A (2001). Cooperation and noise in public goods experiments: Applying the contribution function approach. Journal of Public Economics, 79(2), 399–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, AL, Meer, J, & Williams, JF (2017). Social distance and quality ratings in charity choice. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 66, 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burlando, RM, & Guala, F (2005). Heterogeneous agents in public goods experiments. Experimental Economics, 8(1), 35–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butera, L., & Horn, J. R. (2017). Good News, bad news, and social image: The market for charitable giving. George Mason University Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science (ICES). SSRN https://ssrn.com/abstract=2438230.Google Scholar
Butera, L., & List, J. A. (2017). An economic approach to alleviate the crises of confidence in science: With an application to the public goods game. No. w23335. National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C (2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cettolin, E, Riedl, A, & Tran, G (2017). Giving in the face of risk. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 55(2–3), 95–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, KS et al., (1999). Heterogeneity and the voluntary provision of public goods. Experimental Economics, 2(1), 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G, & Rabin, M (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 817–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, DJ, Kagel, JH Kagel, JH, & Roth, AE (2016). Other-regarding preferences. The handbook of experimental economics, volume 2: The handbook of experimental economics, Princeton: Princeton University Press 217.Google Scholar
Dana, J, Weber, RA, & Kuang, JX (2007). Exploiting moral wiggle room: Experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness. Economic Theory, 33(1), 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Oliveira, ACM, Croson, RTA, & Eckel, C (2015). One bad apple? Heterogeneity and information in public good provision. Experimental Economics, 18(1), 116–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckel, CC, De Oliveira, A, & Grossman, PJ (2007). Is more information always better? An experimental study of charitable giving and Hurricane Katrina. Southern Economic Journal, 74(2), 388–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Exley, CL (2019). Using charity performance metrics as an excuse not to give. Management Science, 10.1287/mnsc.2018.3268Google Scholar
Exley, CL (2016). Excusing selfishness in charitable giving: The role of risk. The Review of Economic Studies, 83(2), 587–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A, & Fischbacher, U (2006). A theory of reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 54(2), 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E, & Schmidt, KM (1999). A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E, & Schmidt, KM (2006). The economics of fairness, reciprocity and altruism-experimental evidence and new theories. Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, 1, 615–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental economics, 10(2), 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U, Gächter, S, & Fehr, E (2001). Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Economics Letters, 71(3), 397–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U, Schudy, S, & Teyssier, S (2014). Heterogeneous reactions to heterogeneity in returns from public goods. Social Choice and Welfare, 43(1), 195–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fong, CM, & Oberholzer-Gee, F (2011). Truth in giving: Experimental evidence on the welfare effects of informed giving to the poor. Journal of Public Economics, 95(5), 436–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gächter, S Frey, BS, & Stutzer, A (2007). Conditional cooperation: Behavioral regularities from the lab and the field and their policy implications. CESifo seminar series. Economics and psychology: A promising new cross-disciplinary field, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 19–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gächter, S, & Thöni, C (2005). Social learning and voluntary cooperation among like-minded people. Journal of the European Economic Association, 3(2–3), 303–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gangadharan, L, & Nemes, V (2009). Experimental analysis of risk and uncertainty in provisioning private and public goods. Economic Inquiry, 47(1), 146–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, T., Massoni, S., & Villeval, M. C. (2019). Ambiguity and excuse-driven behavior in charitable giving. SSRN https://ssrn.com/abstract=3283773.Google Scholar
Greiner, B (2004). The online recruitment system ORSEE 2.0-a guide for the organization of experiments in economics. Working Paper Series in Economics, University of Cologne, 10(23), 63–104.Google Scholar
Gunnthorsdottir, A, Houser, D, & McCabe, K (2007). Disposition, history and contributions in public goods experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 62(2), 304–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haisley, EC, & Weber, RA (2010). Self-serving interpretations of ambiguity in other-regarding behavior. Games and Economic Behavior, 68(2), 614–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlan, D, & Wood, D (2017). The effect of effectiveness: Donor response to aid effectiveness in a direct mail fundraising experiment. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 66(C), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krasteva, S., & Saboury, P. (2019). Informative fundraising: The signaling value of seed money and matching gifts. SSRN https://ssrn.com/abstract=3390008.Google Scholar
Krasteva, S, & Yildirim, H (2013). (Un) Informed charitable giving. Journal of Public Economics, 106, 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurzban, R, & Houser, D (2005). Experiments investigating cooperative types in humans: A complement to evolutionary theory and simulations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(5), 1803–1807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, A, Price, MK, & Santore, R (2017). Signaling quality through gifts: Implications for the charitable sector. European Economic Review, 96, 48–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laussel, D, & Palfrey, TR (2003). Efficient equilibria in the voluntary contributions mechanism with private information. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 5(3), 449–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledyard, JO Kagel, JH, & Roth, AE (1995). Public goods: A survey of experimental research. Handbook of Experimental Economics, Princeton: Princeton University Press 111–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levati, MV, & Morone, A (2013). Voluntary contributions with risky and uncertain marginal returns: The importance of the parameter values. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 15(5), 736–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levati, MV, Morone, A, & Fiore, A (2009). Voluntary contributions with imperfect information: An experimental study. Public Choice, 138(1–2), 199–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, JA, Shaikh, AM, & Yang, X (2019). Multiple hypothesis testing in experimental economics. Experimental Economics, 22, 773–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, MB, & Croson, RTA (1999). The effect of incomplete information in a threshold public goods experiment. Public Choice, 99(1–2), 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menezes, FM, Monteiro, PK, & Temimi, A (2001). Private provision of discrete public goods with incomplete information. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 35(4), 493–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metzger, L, & Günther, I (2019). Making an impact? The relevance of information on aid effectiveness for charitable giving: A laboratory experiment. Journal of Development Economics, 136, 18–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moffatt, PG (2015). Experimetrics: Econometrics for experimental economics, London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Null, C (2011). Warm glow, information, and inefficient charitable giving. Journal of Public Economics, 95(5), 455–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ones, U, & Putterman, L (2007). The ecology of collective action: A public goods and sanctions experiment with controlled group formation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 62(4), 495–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, T, Putterman, L, & Unel, B (2005). Voluntary association in public goods experiments: Reciprocity, mimicry and efficiency. The Economic Journal, 115(506), 1032–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portillo, JE, & Stinn, J (2018). Overhead Aversion: Do some types of overhead matter more than others?. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 72, 40–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potters, J, Sefton, M, & Vesterlund, L (2005). After you—Endogenous sequencing in voluntary contribution games. Journal of Public Economics, 89(8), 1399–1419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potters, J, Sefton, M, & Vesterlund, L (2007). Leading-by-example and signaling in voluntary contribution games: An experimental study. Economic Theory, 33(1), 169–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabin, M (1993). Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. The American Economic Review, 83, 1281–1302.Google Scholar
Shang, J, & Croson, R (2009). A field experiment in charitable contribution: The impact of social information on the voluntary provision of public goods. The Economic Journal, 119(540), 1422–1439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoddard, BV (2015). Probabilistic production of a public good. Economics Bulletin, 35(1), 37–52.Google Scholar
Stoddard, B (2017). Risk in payoff-equivalent appropriation and provision games. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 69, 78–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tella, D, Rafael, RP-T, Babino, A, & Sigman, M (2015). Conveniently upset: Avoiding altruism by distorting beliefs about others’ altruism. American Economic Review, 105(11), 3416–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Théroude, V, & Zylbersztejn, A (2019). Cooperation in a risky world. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 10.1111/jpet.12366Google Scholar
Thöni, C, & Volk, S (2018). Conditional cooperation: Review and refinement. Economics Letters, 171, 37–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vesterlund, L (2003). The informational value of sequential fundraising. Journal of Public Economics, 87(3–4), 627–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vesterlund, L Kagel, JH, & Roth, AE (2016). Using experimental methods to understand why and how we give to charity. The handbook of experimental economics, volume 2: The handbook of experimental economics, Princeton: Princeton University Press 91–152.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Aksoy and Krasteva supplementary material

Aksoy and Krasteva supplementary material 1
Download Aksoy and Krasteva supplementary material(File)
File 2.9 MB
Supplementary material: File

Aksoy and Krasteva supplementary material

Online Supplementary Material
Download Aksoy and Krasteva supplementary material(File)
File 2.8 MB