Bundling Public with Private Goods

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. i.e., the willingness to pay for the bundle exceeds the willingness to pay for the two separate goods. In contrast, we find no superadditivity in control treatments with only private goods. We discuss several behavioral concepts which are in line with our results as well as implications for fundraisers and firms. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may

Who Cares for Social Image? Interactions between Intrinsic Motivation and Social Image Concerns

“…Social image concerns may matter here because if the donations are bundled with the product, the consumers have to communicate their choices to the staff, whereas direct donations are just dropped into a box (this is one of the explanations discussed by their authors, though not explicitly linked to image concerns). The findings by Frackenpohl and Pönitzsch (2013) support self-image concerns in an experiment on the willingness to pay for public goods. They find that bundling a private and a public good increases the valuations for both the public and the private good.…”

“…Assuming that behaving pro-socially confers a positive image, image-concerned individuals should behave more pro-socially in the public sphere than in private. Experimental investigations of giving in the laboratory (Andreoni and Bernheim, 2009;Grossman, 2010;Lazear et al, 2012;Tonin and Vlassopoulos, 2013;Frackenpohl and Pönitzsch, 2013) and in the field (Soetevent, 2005(Soetevent, , 2011DellaVigna et al, 2012) are consistent with this prediction even though the authors do not necessarily put forward image concerns as an explanation for their results and other explanations are possible as well. More specifically, DellaVigna et al (2012) distinguish joy from giving and social pressure as motivations for giving in a field experiment.…”

The effects of bundling on livestock producers' valuations of environmentally friendly traits available through genomic selection

“…However, as our results demonstrate, there are cases in which there is a value to producers in being able to provide a positive environmental amenity even though they may realize no direct private benefit from it. Unlike the end-use consumers examined by Frackenpohl and Pönitzsch (2015), we study agricultural producers that purchase breeding technologies as an input in order to produce dairy products. Previous research supports the notion that consumers may benefit from a "warm glow" effect by valuing the bundle higher.…”

“…16 Furthermore, the durability of the bundle of goods may also impact the WTP. Frackenpohl and Pönitzsch (2015) note that a driver of a hybrid car may experience a "warm glow" effect for the duration of using the vehicle whereas a oneoff donation to a charity may have a shorter duration effect. In the case of dairy producers making long-term breeding decisions, selecting for reduced methane emissions may provide a "durable" and long-lasting "warm glow" effect.…”

“…Yet producers may be able to earn rents via marketing their products on the merits of its environmental friendliness. More recently, Frackenpohl and Pönitzsch (2015) examined the WTP for a private good as well as a donation to a charity (the public good) when they are available separately and as a bundle. The authors sought to determine whether bundling private and public goods led to superadditivity-that is, a case where the valuation of the bundle exceeds the aggregate value of the two goods when sold separately.…”