Recently, increasing numbers of nonprofit studies have used experiments to understand individuals’ charitable giving decisions. One significant gap between experimental settings and the real world is the way in which individuals earn the incomes that they use for charitable donations. This study examined the relationship between individuals’ income sources and their charitable giving decisions. To do so, we conducted a laboratory experiment with 188 college students and asked them to donate with windfall money or with money earned from a real task, respectively. The findings showed that participants donated more to charities if their funds derived from windfall gains. Implications for conducting experiments and motivating donors are also discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Abeler, J., Falk, A., Goette, L., & Huffman, D. (2011). Reference points and effort provision. American Economic Review, 101(2), 470–492.
Al-Ubaydli, O., List, J. A., & Suskind, D. L. (2017). What can we learn from experiments? Understanding the threats to the scalability of experimental results. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 107(5), 282–286.
Arkes, H. R., Joyner, C. A., Pezzo, M. V., Nash, J. G., Siegel-Jacobs, K., & Stone, E. (1994). The psychology of windfall gains. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59(3), 331–347.
Benz, M., & Meier, S. (2008). Do people behave in experiments as in the field?—Evidence from donations. Experimental Economics, 11(3), 268–281.
Camerer, C. F. (2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Carlsson, F., He, H., & Martinsson, P. (2013). Easy come, easy go: The role of windfall money in lab and field experiments. Experimental Economics, 16(2), 190–207.
Carpenter, J., Verhoogen, E., & Burks, S. (2005). The effect of stakes in distribution experiments. Economics Letters, 86(3), 393–398.
CGSS. (n.d.). Chinese general social survey—Digital chronicle of Chinese social change. Retrieved July 17, 2017, from http://www.chinagss.org/.
Cherry, T. L., Frykblom, P., & Shogren, J. F. (2002). Hardnose the dictator. American Economic Review, 92(4), 1218–1221.
Cherry, T. L., Kroll, S., & Shogren, J. F. (2005). The impact of endowment heterogeneity and origin on public good contributions: Evidence from the lab. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 57(3), 357–365.
Clark, J. (2002). House money effects in public goods experiments. Experimental Economics, 5(3), 223–232.
Danková, K., & Servátka, M. (2015). The house money effect and negative reciprocity. Journal of Economic Psychology, 48, 60–71.
Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1996). Altruism in anonymous dictator games. Games and Economic Behavior, 16(2), 181–191.
Falk, A., & Heckman, J. J. (2009). Lab experiments are a major source of knowledge in the social sciences. Science, 326(5952), 535–538.
Fehr, E., & List, J. A. (2004). The hidden costs and returns of incentives—Trust and trustworthiness among CEOs. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2(5), 743–771.
Fischbacher, U. (2007). Z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178.
Gazley, B., & Dignam, M. (2010). The decision to give: What motivates individuals to support professional associations. Washington, DC: ASAE & the Center for Association Leadership.
Gneezy, U., & List, J. A. (2006). Putting behavioral economics to work: Testing for gift exchange in labor markets using field experiments. Econometrica, 74(5), 1365–1384.
Hainmueller, J., Hangartner, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2015). Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(8), 2395–2400.
Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., et al. (2001). In search of homo economicus: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. American Economic Review, 91(2), 73–84.
IRS. (n.d.). SOI tax stats—individual statistical tables by size of adjusted gross income. Retrieved July 25, 2017, from https://www.irs.gov/uac/soi-tax-stats-individual-statistical-tables-by-size-of-adjusted-gross-income.
James, R., III. (2015). The family tribute in charitable bequest giving: An experimental test of the effect of reminders on giving intentions. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 26(1), 73–89.
Janssen, M. A., Holahan, R., Lee, A., & Ostrom, E. (2010). Lab experiments for the study of social-ecological systems. Science, 328(5978), 613–617.
Kim, M., Mason, D. P., & Li, H. (2017). Experimental research for nonprofit management: Charitable giving and fundraising. In O. James, S. Jilke, & G. G. Van Ryzin (Eds.), Experiments in public management research: Challenges & contributions (pp. 415–436). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kim, M., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2014). Impact of government funding on donations to arts organizations: A survey experiment. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(5), 910–925.
Konow, J. (2010). Mixed feelings: Theories of and evidence on giving. Journal of Public Economics, 94(3–4), 279–297.
Kroll, S., Cherry, T. L., & Shogren, J. F. (2007). The impact of endowment heterogeneity and origin on contributions in best-shot public good games. Experimental Economics, 10(4), 411–428.
Lange, A., List, J. A., & Price, M. K. (2007). Using lotteries to finance public goods: Theory and experimental evidence. International Economic Review, 48(3), 901–927.
Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 153–174.
Li, L., Tian, G., & Wang, Z. (2013). Universities have more female students in China? Retrieved July 8, 2017, from http://www.jyb.cn/high/gjsd/201310/t20131017_555945.html.
Li, H., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2017). A systematic review of experimental studies in public management journals. In O. James, S. Jilke, & G. G. Van Ryzin (Eds.), Experiments in public management research: challenges & contributions (pp. 20–36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
List, J. A. (2007a). Field experiments: A bridge between lab and naturally occurring data. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 5(2), 1–47.
List, J. A. (2007b). On the interpretation of giving in dictator games. Journal of Political Economy, 115(3), 482–493.
List, J. A. (2008). Introduction to field experiments in economics with applications to the economics of charity. Experimental Economics, 11(3), 203–212.
List, J. A., & Peysakhovich, Y. (2011). Charitable donations are more responsive to stock market booms than busts. Economics Letters, 110(2), 166–169.
Ma, J., Wang, Q., Dong, C., & Li, H. (2017). The research infrastructure of Chinese foundations, A database for Chinese civil society studies. Scientific Data, 4, 170094. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.94.
Mason, D. P. (2013). Putting charity to the test: A case for field experiments on giving time and money in the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(1), 193–202.
Mason, D. P. (2016). Recognition and cross-cultural communications as motivators for charitable giving a field experiment. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(1), 192–204.
McGranahan, L. M. (2000). Charity and the bequest motive: Evidence from seventeenth-century wills. Journal of Political Economy, 108(6), 1270–1291.
Null, C. (2011). Warm glow, information, and inefficient charitable giving. Journal of Public Economics, 95(5–6), 455–465.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peck, L. R., & Guo, C. (2015). How does public assistance use affect charitable activity? A tale of two methods. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(4), 665–685.
Sargeant, A., & Shang, J. (2011). Bequest giving: Revisiting donor motivation with dimensional qualitative research. Psychology and Marketing, 28(10), 980–997.
Scharf, K. (2014). Impure prosocial motivation in charity provision: Warm-glow charities and implications for public funding. Journal of Public Economics, 114, 50–57.
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.
Smith, V. L. (2010). Theory and experiment: What are the questions? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 73(1), 3–15.
Soetevent, A. R. (2011). Payment choice, image motivation and contributions to charity: Evidence from a field experiment. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 3(1), 180–205.
Van Ryzin, G., Riccucci, N., & Li, H. (2017). Representative bureaucracy and its symbolic effect on citizens: A conceptual replication. Public Management Review, 19(9), 1365–1379.
Wang, L., & Ashcraft, R. F. (2014). Organizational commitment and involvement: Explaining the decision to give to associations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(s2), s61–s83.
Zhou, Y., Lian, H., Chen, Y., Zuo, C., & Ye, H. (2013). Social role, heterogeneous preferences and public goods provision. Economic Research, 1, 123–136.
We thank Rene Bekkers, Weigang Fu, Haoran He, Zhiwei Liu, Alex Ingrams, Gregg G. Van Ryzin, Sanjay Pandey for helpful comments. We also thank Shuying Wang for the help in z-Tree programming. For all remaining errors, authors may blame each other.
The authors acknowledged the financial support from the Shanghai Institute of Finance and Law.
Conflict of interest
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
About this article
Cite this article
Li, H., Liang, J., Xu, H. et al. Does Windfall Money Encourage Charitable Giving? An Experimental Study. Voluntas 30, 841–848 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-018-9985-y
- Windfall effect
- Charitable giving
- Laboratory experiment