在自愿选择接受者性别的情况下,独裁者游戏中的性别效应:女性偏爱女性受助者

IF 1.6 3区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics Pub Date : 2024-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.socec.2024.102183
Maximilian Baltrusch , Philipp C. Wichardt
{"title":"在自愿选择接受者性别的情况下,独裁者游戏中的性别效应:女性偏爱女性受助者","authors":"Maximilian Baltrusch ,&nbsp;Philipp C. Wichardt","doi":"10.1016/j.socec.2024.102183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Allowing for free choice of the recipient’s gender in a dictator game (<span><math><mrow><mi>N</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>357</mn></mrow></math></span>), women give more frequently to their own gender (70.3% vs 9.4%) while men do not prefer a specific recipient’s gender (33.3% vs 27.8%). Conditional on a positive transfer being made, the average amount of transfers to each gender does not vary between genders, though. Once a charity recipient is added to the possible choices, overall transfers increase and gender differences in average giving mostly vanish, as the charity becomes the primary recipient for all participants. The literature on cognitive dissonance (the feeling of distress once we act against our internalised values) emphasises the importance of voluntary choice for dissonance effects to take hold. Accordingly, we interpret our results as hinting at an important detail regarding the ongoing gender debate about altruistic giving: primary differences may not be found in the amount of transfers made but in the choice of the beneficiary’s gender.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51637,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804324000235/pdfft?md5=3fd920ba69ad31ca16eac0ae8cacd8cf&pid=1-s2.0-S2214804324000235-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gender effects in dictator game giving under voluntary choice of the recipient’s gender: Women favour female recipients\",\"authors\":\"Maximilian Baltrusch ,&nbsp;Philipp C. Wichardt\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.socec.2024.102183\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Allowing for free choice of the recipient’s gender in a dictator game (<span><math><mrow><mi>N</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>357</mn></mrow></math></span>), women give more frequently to their own gender (70.3% vs 9.4%) while men do not prefer a specific recipient’s gender (33.3% vs 27.8%). Conditional on a positive transfer being made, the average amount of transfers to each gender does not vary between genders, though. Once a charity recipient is added to the possible choices, overall transfers increase and gender differences in average giving mostly vanish, as the charity becomes the primary recipient for all participants. The literature on cognitive dissonance (the feeling of distress once we act against our internalised values) emphasises the importance of voluntary choice for dissonance effects to take hold. Accordingly, we interpret our results as hinting at an important detail regarding the ongoing gender debate about altruistic giving: primary differences may not be found in the amount of transfers made but in the choice of the beneficiary’s gender.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51637,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804324000235/pdfft?md5=3fd920ba69ad31ca16eac0ae8cacd8cf&pid=1-s2.0-S2214804324000235-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804324000235\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804324000235","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在独裁者游戏(N=357)中,如果可以自由选择接受者的性别,则女性会更频繁地向自己的性别(70.3% 对 9.4%)转账,而男性则不喜欢特定的接受者性别(33.3% 对 27.8%)。在正向转账的条件下,不同性别之间的平均转账金额并无差别。一旦在可能的选择中增加了一个慈善收款人,总的转账金额就会增加,平均捐赠金额的性别差异也会随之消失,因为慈善收款人成为了所有参与者的主要收款人。关于认知失调(一旦我们的行为违背了我们内在的价值观,我们就会感到痛苦)的文献强调了自愿选择对失调效应发生作用的重要性。因此,我们认为我们的研究结果暗示了目前关于利他捐赠的性别辩论中的一个重要细节:主要差异可能不在于转账金额,而在于受益人性别的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Gender effects in dictator game giving under voluntary choice of the recipient’s gender: Women favour female recipients

Allowing for free choice of the recipient’s gender in a dictator game (N=357), women give more frequently to their own gender (70.3% vs 9.4%) while men do not prefer a specific recipient’s gender (33.3% vs 27.8%). Conditional on a positive transfer being made, the average amount of transfers to each gender does not vary between genders, though. Once a charity recipient is added to the possible choices, overall transfers increase and gender differences in average giving mostly vanish, as the charity becomes the primary recipient for all participants. The literature on cognitive dissonance (the feeling of distress once we act against our internalised values) emphasises the importance of voluntary choice for dissonance effects to take hold. Accordingly, we interpret our results as hinting at an important detail regarding the ongoing gender debate about altruistic giving: primary differences may not be found in the amount of transfers made but in the choice of the beneficiary’s gender.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
113
审稿时长
83 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly the Journal of Socio-Economics) welcomes submissions that deal with various economic topics but also involve issues that are related to other social sciences, especially psychology, or use experimental methods of inquiry. Thus, contributions in behavioral economics, experimental economics, economic psychology, and judgment and decision making are especially welcome. The journal is open to different research methodologies, as long as they are relevant to the topic and employed rigorously. Possible methodologies include, for example, experiments, surveys, empirical work, theoretical models, meta-analyses, case studies, and simulation-based analyses. Literature reviews that integrate findings from many studies are also welcome, but they should synthesize the literature in a useful manner and provide substantial contribution beyond what the reader could get by simply reading the abstracts of the cited papers. In empirical work, it is important that the results are not only statistically significant but also economically significant. A high contribution-to-length ratio is expected from published articles and therefore papers should not be unnecessarily long, and short articles are welcome. Articles should be written in a manner that is intelligible to our generalist readership. Book reviews are generally solicited but occasionally unsolicited reviews will also be published. Contact the Book Review Editor for related inquiries.
期刊最新文献
Privacy during pandemics: Attitudes to public use of personal data Understanding inconsistencies in risk attitude elicitation games: Evidence from smallholder farmers in five African countries Inflation expectations in the wake of the war in Ukraine Asking for a friend: Reminders and incentives for crowdfunding college savings ‘Update Bias’: Manipulating past information based on the existing circumstances
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1