Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-sbgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-23T17:27:18.494Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Heterogeneous preferences for altruism: gender and personality, social status, giving and taking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Michael S. Visser  and
Matthew R. Roelofs
Michael S. Visser*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Sonoma State University, 1801 East Cotati Ave., Rohnert Park, CA 94928, USA
Matthew R. Roelofs*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Western Washington University, 516 High Street, Bellingham, WA 98225, USA
*
e-mail: visser@sonoma.edu
e-mail: matthew.roelofs@wwu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Some of the earliest work on heterogeneity in social preferences focuses on gender differences in behavior. The source of these gender differences is the main interest of this paper. We report on dictator game experiments designed to identify heterogeneity of other-regarding preferences according to personality, gender, status, and whether the choice is framed as giving or taking. We find that the effect of gender on giving is more subtle than previously understood, and is explained collectively by various personality factors. We also find that women, high status treatment individuals, and individuals in the giving language treatment give less, and are also less sensitive to the price of giving.

Keywords

AltruismStatusGenderFraming effectsPersonality

JEL classification

D63: Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement A13: Relation of Economics to Social Values D64: Altruism • Philanthropy • Intergenerational Transfers D01: Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior
Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , November 2011 , pp. 490 - 506
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi: 10.1007/s10683-011-9278-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Andreoni, J. (1995). Warm-glow versus cold-prickle—the effects of positive and negative framing on co-operation in experiments. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J., & Miller, J. (2002). Giving according to GARP: an experimental test of the consistency of preferences for altruism. Econometrica, 70(2), 737–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J., & Vesterlund, L. (2001). Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 293–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, S., Eckel, C. C., Grossman, P. J., & Zame, W. (2001). Status in markets. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 161–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Ner, A., Kong, F., & Putterman, L. (2004). Share and share alike? Gender-pairing, personality, and cognitive ability as determinants of giving. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25(5), 581–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boone, C., De Brabander, B., & van Witteloostuijn, A. (1999). The impact of personality on behavior in five Prisoner's Dilemma games. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20(3), 343–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandstatter, H., & Guth, W. (2002). Personality in dictator and ultimatum games. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 10(3), 191–215.Google Scholar
Brandts, J., Guth, W., & Stiehler, A. (2006). I want you! An experiment studying motivational effects when assigning distributive power. Labour Economics, 13(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, J. C., & Deck, C. A. (2006). When are women more generous than men? Economic Inquiry, 44(4), 587–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1998). Are women less selfish than men? Evidence from dictator experiments. Economic Journal, 108(448), 726–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: the search for universals in personality lexicons. In Wheeler, L. (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (pp. 141–165). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: the Big Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gujarati, D. N. (2003). Basic econometrics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Harbaugh, W. T., Krause, K., & Berry, T. R. (2001). GARP for kids: on the development of rational choice behavior. American Economic Review, 91, 1539–1545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koole, S.L., Jager, W., van den Berg, A. E., Vlek, C. A.J., & Hofstee, W.K.B. (2001). On the social nature of personality: effects of extraversion, agreeableness, and feedback about collective resource use on cooperation in a resource dilemma. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(3), 289–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krupka, E. L., & Weber, R. A. (2009). Identifying social norms using coordination games: why does dictator game sharing vary? Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Paper 98. Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
Kumru, C., & Vesterlund, L. (2008). The effect of status on voluntary contribution. Working Paper.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: evidence of differential relationships with Big Five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 326–336.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. (1990). Personality in adulthood. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why can't a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 168–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swope, K. J., Cadigan, J., Schmitt, P. M., & Shupp, R. (2008). Personality preferences in laboratory economics experiments. Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(3), 998–1009.Google Scholar
Varian, H. R. (1982). The nonparametric approach to demand analysis. Econometrica, 50(4), 945–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Visser and Roelofs supplementary material

Visser and Roelofs supplementary material
Download Visser and Roelofs supplementary material(File)
File 106.2 KB