<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>
AbstractIn 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.
methodology.NAKeywords, experiments, charitable contributions, methodology, Experiments, charitable contributions, methodology., Social Sciences, methodology, BF1-990, H, charitable contributions, Psychology, Experiments, jel: jel:C91, jel: jel:D64, jel: jel:H24
methodology.NAKeywords, experiments, charitable contributions, methodology, Experiments, charitable contributions, methodology., Social Sciences, methodology, BF1-990, H, charitable contributions, Psychology, Experiments, jel: jel:C91, jel: jel:D64, jel: jel:H24
citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 22 | |
popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |