The behavior of others and the price of giving are two important determinants of contributions to public goods. Using two field experiments, this article tests whether men and women differ in their reactions to either a change in the average behavior of the group or a change in the price of giving, that is, a contribution-matching mechanism. The results of the field experiments show that men and women do not differ in their reactions to a matching mechanism. However, substantial gender differences can be detected with respect to social comparison. Men tend to align their behavior with the average behavior of the group, whereas women seem to be insensitive to information about group behavior.
Andreoni, James, Eleanor Brown, and Isaac Rischall. 2003. Charitable giving by married couples: Who decides and why does it matter?Journal of Human Resources38 (1): 111-133.
2.
Andreoni, James, and Lise Vesterlund. 2001. Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. Quarterly Journal of Economics116 (1): 293-312.
3.
Ashraf, Nava, Iris Bohnet, and Nikita Piankov. 2004. Decomposing trust and trustworthiness. Mimeograph, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
4.
Auten, Gerald, Holger Sieg, and Charles T. Clotfelter. 2002. Charitable giving, income and taxes: An analysis of panel data. American Economic Review92:371-382.
5.
Baumeister, Roy F., and Kristin L. Sommer. 1997. What do men want? Gender differences and two spheres of belongingness: Comment on Cross and Madson (1997). Psychological Bulletin122 (1): 38-44.
6.
Brown-Kruse, Jamie, and David Hummels. 1993. Gender effects in laboratory public goods contribution: Do individuals put their money where their mouth is?Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization22 (3): 255-267.
7.
Cialdini, Robert G., and Noah J. Goldstein. 2004. Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology55:591-621.
8.
Conlin, Michael, Michael Lynn, and Ted O'Donoghue. 2003. The norm of restaurant tipping. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization52 (3): 297-321.
9.
Croson, Rachel, and Uri Gneezy. 2005. Gender differences in preferences. Mimeograph, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
10.
Cross, Susan E., and Laura Madson. 1997. Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin122 (1): 5-37.
11.
Eagly, Alice H.1978. Sex differences in influenceability. Psychological Bulletin85 (1): 86-116.
12.
Eagly, Alice H., and Linda L. Carli. 1981. Sex of researchers and sex-typed communications as determinants of sex difference in influenceability: A meta-analysis of social influence studies. Psychological Bulletin90 (1): 1-20.
13.
Eagly, Alice H., and Carole Chrvala. 1986. Sex differences in conformity: Status and gender role interpretations. Psychology of Women Quarterly10:203-220.
14.
Eagly, Alice H., and Maureen Crowley. 1986. Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin100 (3): 283-308.
15.
Eckel, Catherine C., and Philip J. Grossman. 1996. The relative price of fairness: Gender differences in a punishment game. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization30 (2): 143-158.
16.
Eckel, Catherine C., and Philip J. Grossman. 1997. Are women less selfish than men? Evidence from dictator experiments. Economic Journal108 (448): 726-735.
17.
Eckel, Catherine C., and Philip J. Grossman. 2001. Differences in the economic decisions of men and women: Experimental evidence. In Handbook of experimental economics results, ed. C. R. Plott and V. L. Smith. Amsterdam: Noth Holland/Elsevier.
18.
Eckel, Catherine C., and Philip J. Grossman. 2003. Rebate versus matching: Does how we subsidize charitable giving matter?Journal of Public Economics87:681-701.
19.
Eckel, Catherine C., and Philip J. Grossman. 2005. Subsidizing charitable contributions: A field test comparing matching and rebate subsidies. Mimeograph, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and Station University, Blacksburg.
20.
Falk, Armin. 2004. Charitable giving as a gift exchange: Evidence from a field experiment. Working Paper Series, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich, Switzerland.
21.
Fischbacher, Urs, Simon Gächter, and Ernst Fehr. 2001. Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Economics Letters71 (3): 397-404.
22.
Frey, Bruno S., and Stephan Meier. 2003. Are political economists selfish and indoctrinated? Evidence from a natural experiment. Economic Inquiry41 (3): 448-462.
23.
Frey, Bruno S., and Stephan Meier. 2004a. Pro-social behavior in a natural setting. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization54 (1): 65-88.
24.
Frey, Bruno S., and Stephan Meier. 2004b. Social comparisons and pro-social behavior: Testing conditional cooperation in a field experiment. American Economic Review94 (5): 1717-1722.
25.
Gabriel, Shira, and Wendi L. Gardner. 1999. Are there “his” and “hers” types of interdependence? The implications of gender differences in collective versus relational interdependence for affect, behavior, and cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology77 (3): 642-655.
26.
List, John A., and David Lucking-Reiley. 2002. The effects of seed money and refunds on charitable giving: Experimental evidence from a university capital campaign. Journal of Political Economy110 (1): 215-233.
27.
Meier, Stephan. 2005Do subsidies increase charitable giving in the long run? Matching donations in a field experiment. Mimeograph, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich, Switzerland.
28.
Meier, Stephan. 2006. Does framing matter for conditional cooperation? Evidence from a natural field experiment. Contributions to Economic Analysis!!& Policy5 (2): Article 1.
29.
Potters, Jan, Martin Sefton, and Lise Vesterlund. 2005. After you—Endogenous sequencing in voluntary contribution games. Journal of Public Economics89 (8): 1399-1419.
30.
Seguino, Stephanie, Thomas Stevens, and Mark A. Lutz. 1996. Gender and cooperative behavior: Economic man rides alone. Feminist Economics2 (1): 1-21.
31.
Shang, Jen, and Rachel Croson. 2005a. Field experiments in charitable contribution: The impact of social influence on the voluntary provision of public goods. Mimeograph, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
32.
Shang, Jen, and Rachel Croson. 2005b. The impact of social influence on the voluntary provision of public goods. Mimeograph, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
33.
Swamy, Anand, Stephen Knack, Young Lee, and Omar Azfar. 2001. Gender and corruption. Journal of Development Economics64 (1): 25-55.
