Experimental Economics

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 426–437 | Cite as

Measuring altruism in a public goods experiment: a comparison of U.S. and Czech subjects

  • Lisa R. Anderson
  • Francis J. DiTraglia
  • Jeffrey R. Gerlach
Article

Abstract

This paper compares contributions to an experimental public good across the United States and Czech Republic, using a design that allows us to distinguish between altruism and decision error. Czech subjects contribute significantly more than American subjects, and further analysis reveals that this result cannot be attributed to the confounding effects of gender or decision error. Instead, preferences for altruism appear to differ across groups: Czechs are more altruistic than Americans and men are more altruistic than women.

Keywords

Public goods Experiment Czech Republic Nationality Gender 

JEL Classification

C92 H41 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

10683_2011_9274_MOESM1_ESM.docx (14 kb)
(DOCX 14.4 KB)

References

  1. Anderson, S. P., Goeree, J. K., & Holt, C. A. (1998). A theoretical analysis of altruism and decision error in public goods games. Journal of Public Economics, 70, 297–323. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreoni, J. (1995). Warm-glow versus cold-prickle: the effects of positive and negative framing on cooperation in experiments. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, CX(1), 1–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brandts, J., Saijo, T., & Schram, A. (2004). How universal is behavior? A four country comparison of spite and cooperation in voluntary contribution mechanisms. Public Choice, 119, 381–424. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown-Kruse, J., & Hummels, D. (1993). Gender effects in laboratory public goods: do individuals put their money where their mouth is? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 22(3), 255–267. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burlando, R., & Hey, J. D. (1997). Do Anglo-Saxons free-ride more? Journal of Public Economics, 64, 41–60. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cadsby, C. B., & Maynes, E. (1998). Gender and free riding in a threshold public goods game: experimental evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 34, 603–620. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cadsby, B., Hamaguchi, Y., Kawagoe, T., Maynes, E., & Song, F. (2007). Cross-national gender differences in behavior in a threshold public goods game: Japan versus Canada. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28(2), 242–260. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cason, T. N., Saijo, T., & Yamato, T. (2002). Voluntary participation and spite in public good provision experiments: an international comparison. Experimental Economics, 5, 133–153. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dawes, R. M., McTavish, J., & Shaklee, H. (1977). Behavior, communication, and assumptions about other people’s behavior in a commons dilemma situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(1), 1–11. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goeree, J. K., Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Private costs and public benefits: unraveling the effects of altruism and noisy behavior. Journal of Public Economics, 83, 255–276. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goeree, J. K., Holt, C. A., & Smith, A. M. (2005). An experimental examination of the volunteer’s dilemma. Working Paper. Google Scholar
  12. Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., & McElreath, R. (2001). In search of homo economicus: behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. The American Economic Review, 91(2), 73–78. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Herrmann, B., Thöni, C., & Gächter, S. (2008). Antisocial punishment across societies. Science, 319, 1362–1367. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations (2nd edn.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Google Scholar
  15. Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar
  16. Ledyard, J. O. (1995). Public goods: a survey of experimental research. In J. H. Kagel & A. E. Roth (Eds.), The handbook of experimental economics (pp. 111–194). Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  17. Nowell, C., & Tinker, S. (1994). The influence of gender on the provision of a public good. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 25, 25–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ockenfels, A., & Weimann, J. (1999). Types and patterns: an experimental East-West-German comparison of cooperation and solidarity. Journal of Public Economics, 71, 275–287. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Poppe, M., & Utens, L. (1986). Effects of greed and fear of being gypped in a social dilemma situation with changing pool size. Journal of Economic Psychology, 7, 61–73. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Roth, A. E., Prasnikar, V., Okuno-Fujiwara, M., & Zamir, S. (1991). Bargaining and market behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo: an experimental study. The American Economic Review, 81(5), 1068–1095. Google Scholar
  21. Seguino, S., Stevens, T., & Lutz, M. (1996). Gender and cooperative behavior: economic man rides alone. Feminist Economics, 2(1), 1–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sell, J. (1997). Gender, strategies, and contributions to public goods. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60(3), 252–2650. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Solow, J. L., & Kirkwood, N. (2002). Group identity and gender in public goods experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 48, 403–412. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. World Bank (2008). 2005 International comparison program: tables of final results. Washington: World Bank. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Science Association 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lisa R. Anderson
    • 1
  • Francis J. DiTraglia
    • 2
  • Jeffrey R. Gerlach
    • 3
  1. 1.The College of William and MaryDepartment of EconomicsWilliamsburgUSA
  2. 2.Faculty of EconomicsUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  3. 3.SKK Graduate School of BusinessSungKyunKwan UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations