Generosity, anonymity, gender

Abstract We examine experimentally how a person's generosity depends on the degree of anonymity between giver and recipient, as well as on the parties’ sexes. Less is given when the giver is paid on stage rather than in private; men receive less than women; fewer men than women give non-zero amounts. The results suggest that it may be problematic to organize experimental data in terms of social distance.

[1]  Iris Bohnet,et al.  The sound of silence in prisoner's dilemma and dictator games , 1999 .

[2]  M. Degroot,et al.  Probability and Statistics , 2021, Examining an Operational Approach to Teaching Probability.

[3]  Håkan J. Holm,et al.  Gender-Based Focal Points , 2000, Games Econ. Behav..

[4]  B. Frey,et al.  Social Distance and Other-Regarding Behavior in Dictator Games: Comment , 1999 .

[5]  Martin Dufwenberg,et al.  Discrimination by Gender and Social Distance , 2002 .

[6]  A. Kazdin.  Encyclopedia of psychology , 1984 .

[7]  Avner Ben-Ner,et al.  Share and share alike? Gender-pairing, personality, and cognitive ability as determinants of giving , 2004 .

[8]  S. R. Wallace.  Encyclopedia of psychology. , 1947, Psychological bulletin.

[9]  Catherine C. Eckel,et al.  Are Women Less Selfish Than Men?: Evidence From Dictator Experiments , 1998 .

[10]  S. Siegel,et al.  Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[11]  J. Kagel,et al.  Handbook of Experimental Economics , 1997 .

[12]  Walter L. Smith.  Probability and Statistics , 1959, Nature.

[13]  J. Horowitz,et al.  Fairness in Simple Bargaining Experiments , 1994 .

[14]  V. Smith,et al.  Social Distance and Other-Regarding Behavior in Dictator Games: Reply , 1999 .

[15]  Norman Frohlich,et al.  Some doubts about measuring self-interest using dictator experiments: the costs of anonymity , 2001 .

[16]  N. Frohlich,et al.  Modeling Other-Regarding Preferences and an Experimental Test , 2004 .

[17]  C. Fershtman,et al.  Trust and discrimination in a segmented society: An experimental approach , 2001 .

[18]  Magnus Johannesson,et al.  Non-reciprocal altruism in dictator games , 2000 .

[19]  E. Bogardus,et al.  Immigration and race attitudes , 1928 .

[20]  Gary E. Bolton,et al.  An Experimental Test for Gender Differences in Beneficent Behavior , 1995 .

[21]  Kjetil Telle,et al.  The impact of social approval and framing on cooperation in public good situations , 2004 .

[22]  T. Murdock,et al.  How to Promote Social Approval: Effects of Audience and Achievement Outcome on Publicly Communicated Attributions. , 1993 .

[23]  J. Andreoni,et al.  Which is the Fair Sex? Gender Differences in Altruism , 2001 .

[24]  Gary E. Bolton,et al.  Dictator game giving: Rules of fairness versus acts of kindness , 1998, Int. J. Game Theory.

[25]  H. Holm,et al.  Choosing Bargaining Partners—An Experimental Study on the Impact of Information About Income, Status and Gender , 2005 .

[26]  V. Smith,et al.  Preferences, Property Rights, and Anonymity in Bargaining Games , 1994 .

[27]  G. Charness,et al.  What's in a Name? Anonymity and Social Distance in Dictator and Ultimatum Games , 2003 .

[28]  H. Holm,et al.  Choosing Bargaining Partners – An experimental study on the impact of information about income and gender , 2001 .

[29]  J. Shogren.  Fairness in bargaining requires a context: An experimental examination of loyalty , 1989 .

[30]  Catherine C. Eckel,et al.  Chivalry and Solidarity in Ultimatum Games , 2001 .