Gamble for the needy! Does identifiability enhances donation?

Abstract

To investigate how neediness and identifiability of a recipient influence the willingness of a donor to invest resources in charity-like lotteries we propose a new game, called 'need game'. Similar to the dictator game, the need game includes two players, one active player (the donor or dictator) and one passive player (the recipient). Both players require a minimum need (N D and N R), expressed in terms of points. The donor is endowed with K D points and must retain at least N D points, i.e., the need, with N D < K D , at the end of the game with n rounds. The recipient starts with K R points and must end the game with at least N R points, i.e., the need, with K R < N R < K D. The donor is asked to choose one of three different amounts from K D to place a bet on a lottery. If won, the gain is added to the endowment. If lost, the recipient receives the points. The recipient is paid only when his/her need threshold is obtained; likewise the donor gets paid only when his/her need threshold is maintained. The main focus here is on need of both players (N D = N R = 2, 200, and ND = N R = 0 serving as baseline control) and the identifiability of the recipient (no information, described by text and picture, and physical presence). We probe whether the amount invested by the donor depends on need and identifiability of the recipient. In addition, we include the framing of the game as gain or loss, different probabilities to win/lose, and different time limits as covariates. We found that each of these factors can play a role when investing in charity-like lotteries.

Keep your budget together! Investigating determinants on risky decision-making about losses

“…The frequency of risky choices increased with increasing probabilities of winning the gamble. This finding supports previous research investigating the role of probabilities in risky choice framing paradigms [ 8 , 12 , 17 , 19 ]. However, despite the similar designs, it contradicts the results of De Martino et al [ 11 ] and Sundelin et al [ 55 ] who found less risky choices for higher than for lower probabilities.…”

“…When using longer time limits (e. g., 8s vs. 32s) risk-taking seem to decrease under shorter time limits [ 57 , 58 ]. Other studies did not find any main effects of time limits on risky choice behavior at all [ 8 , 12 , 19 ]. Furthermore, a time limit effect may also depend on individual differences [ 17 ].…”

“…We used a psychophysical data collection approach as used in previous framing studies [ 8 , 11 , 12 , 17 , 19 , 20 ]. That is, instead of presenting few trials to many participants as in a typical social science approach, here fewer participants perform many more trials.…”

“…Within the latter, even different diseases may affect the framing effect size [ 8 – 10 ]. Moreover, the probability of winning/losing the gamble and the magnitude of outcomes are factors that can influence risk-taking independently from the framing [ 8 , 11 , 12 ].…”

“…Furthermore, the effect of need reduced the framing effect because the increase of risky choices was higher in gain-frames than in loss-frames. Using the same definition and operationalization of need, Wyszynski et al [ 12 ] examined the role of it in decisions in which the decision-makers had to take care of both their own need and the need of another person (identified or not). The experimental setting was a charity-like lottery, framed as gain or loss, in which points could be won (self) or lost (other).…”