Department of Social & Decision Sciences
Carnegie Mellon University
500 Forbes Avenue, BP 208
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
NBER Working Papers and Publications
|June 2009||Do Race and Fairness Matter in Generosity? Evidence from a Nationally Representative Charity Experiment|
with Erzo F.P. Luttmer: w15064
We present a dictator game experiment where the recipients are local charities that serve the poor. Donors consist of approximately 1000 participants from a nationally representative respondent panel that is maintained by a private survey research firm, Knowledge Networks. We randomly manipulate the perceived race and worthiness of the charity recipients by showing respondents an audiovisual presentation about the recipients. The experiment yields three main findings. First, we find significant racial bias in perceptions of worthiness: respondents rate recipients of their own racial group as more worthy. Second, respondents give significantly more when the recipients are described as more worthy. These findings may lead one to expect that respondents would also give more generously when sh...
Published: “ Do Race and Fairness Matter in Generosity? Evidence from a Nationally Representative Charity Experiment ,” (with Christina M. Fong), Journal of Public Economics , 95(5 - 6), pp. 372 – 394, June 2011.
|July 2007||What Determines Giving to Hurricane Katrina Victims? Experimental Evidence on Income, Race, and Fairness|
with Erzo F.P. Luttmer: w13219
We investigate determinants of private and public generosity to Katrina victims using an artifactual field experiment. In this experiment, respondents from the general population viewed a short audiovisual presentation that manipulated respondents' perceptions of the income, race, and deservingness of Katrina victims in one of two small cities. Respondents then decided how to split $100 between themselves and a charity helping Katrina victims in this small city. We also collected survey data on subjective support for government spending to help the Katrina victims in the cities. We find, first, that our income manipulation had a significant effect on giving; respondents gave more when they perceived the victims to be poorer. Second, the race and deservingness manipulations had virtuall...