Rebate subsidies, matching subsidies and isolation effects
Journal Title: Judgment and Decision Making - Year 2006, Vol 1, Issue 1
Abstract
In a series of recent experiments (Davis, Millner and Reilly, 2005, Eckel and Grossman, 2003, 2005a-c, 2006), matching subsidies generate significantly higher charity receipts than do theoretically equivalent rebate subsidies. This paper reports a laboratory experiment conducted to examine whether the higher receipts are attributable to a relative preference for matching subsidies or to an “isolation effect” (McCaffery and Baron, 2003, 2006). Some potential policy implications of isolation effects on charitable contributions are also considered.
Authors and Affiliations
Douglas D. Davis
Keywords
Related Articles
- EP ID EP677545
- DOI -
- Views 276
- Downloads 0
Between me and we: The importance of self-profit versus social justifiability for ethical decision making
Current theories of dishonest behavior suggest that both individual profits and the availability of justifications drive cheating. Although some evidence hints that cheating behavior is most prevalent when both self-prof...
Decision importance as a cue for deferral
A series of 7 experiments found that people defer important decisions more than unimportant decisions, and that this is independent of choice set composition. This finding persists even when deferral does not provide mor...
Dual processes and moral conflict: Evidence for deontological reasoners’ intuitive utilitarian sensitivity
The prominent dual process model of moral cognition suggests that reasoners intuitively detect that harming others is wrong (deontological System-1 morality) but have to engage in demanding deliberation to realize that h...
It’s not right but it’s permitted: Wording effects in moral judgement
This study aims to provide evidence about two widely held assumptions in the experimental study of moral judgment. First, that different terms used to ask for moral judgment (e.g., blame, wrongness, permissibility…) can...
Downside financial risk is misunderstood
The mathematics of downside financial risk can be difficult to understand: For example a 50% loss requires a subsequent 100% gain to break-even. A given percentage loss always requires a greater percentage gain to break-...