File Drawer

Here’s the file drawer of studies that I did not publish (yet). If you work on similar projects and would like to collaborate on getting these published, let me know.

  1. Do two eyes see more generosity than one? (2011)
  2. Is the charitable deduction in the Netherlands treasury efficient? (2009)
  3. Values and volunteering (2007)
  4. Words and deeds of generosity (2005)
  5. Stability, reliability, and validity of social value orientation (2004)

 

 

1. Do two eyes see more generosity than one?

In two studies, the effects of gender, cues of being watched and their interaction on charitable donations were examined among a national sample of male and female adolescents in the Netherlands. In both studies, I find that females are more generous than males when no cues of being watched are presented. While subtle cues of being watched had no effects, black/white pictures of one real eye and one pair of real eyes enhanced generosity towards charitable causes, especially among boys.

Paper (2011): https://osf.io/pseu2/. Materials: https://osf.io/xftus/. Rejected in 2010 at Evolution & Human Behavior (reviews here), not revised and resubmitted since then.

 

2. Is the charitable deduction in the Netherlands treasury efficient?

This paper investigates the effects of the charitable deduction in the income tax in the
Netherlands on donations. Using data from the Netherlands Income Panel Study (IPO), we show trends in the use and the volume of the deduction between 1977 and 2005. Using data from the Giving in the Netherlands Panel Survey, we estimate the change in the amount donated in response to changes in the use of the deduction. We find that changes in the use of the deduction are followed by changes in the amount donated. However, we also find that changes in the use of the deduction are also preceded by changes in total giving. The endogeneity of the deduction combined with a lack of data on income before taxes makes it difficult to quantify the treasury efficiency of the deduction.

Paper (2009): https://renebekkers.files.wordpress.com/2019/11/bekkers_mariani_09.pdf. Not submitted for publication. Book chapter in Dutch: Gebruik van de giftenaftrek in Nederland, 1977-2007.

 

3. Values and Volunteering
Data from three waves of the Giving in the Netherlands Panel Survey (2002-2006) are show that volunteers have a stronger tendency to cooperate with others in social dilemma situations, are more trusting of others, feel more strongly responsible for community at large, and find helping others more important than non-volunteers. The results reveal that relations between prosocial values and volunteering are mostly due to selection. Those with more prosocial values are more likely to join the volunteer work force, and are less likely to quit. Effects of volunteering on prosocial values are limited.

Paper: https://osf.io/rj7bv/. Prepared for and presented at the 35th annual Arnova Conference, Atlanta, November 2007. Not submitted for publication.

 

4. Words and deeds of generosity: Are Decisions About Real and Hypothetical Money Really Different?

Allocations of a reward for filling out the questionnaire for the Giving in the Netherlands Panel Survey to charity were higher when participants reported what they would do in hypothetical situations than when they made decisions on actual money. Effects of the price of giving were somewhat smaller in the hypothetical condition. Individual correlates of giving were about the same in hypothetical and real money conditions, with the exception of earnings (weaker for hypothetical allocations) and empathic concern (stronger for hypothetical allocations).

Paper (2005): https://osf.io/2nh6p/. Not submitted for publication.

 

5. Stability, reliability, and validity of social value orientation

Over a period of 19 months, the stability of social value orientation is .22, correcting for measurement error. When social value orientations are measured in a survey after behavioral questions on charitable giving, the proportion of ‘cooperators’ increases from 41% to 57%.

Paper (2004): https://osf.io/5emfp/. Not submitted for publication.