Abstract
This paper theoretically and experimentally investigates the impact of information provision on voluntary contributions to a linear public good with an uncertain marginal percapita return (MPCR). Uninformed donors make contribution decisions based only on the expected MPCR (i.e. the prior distribution), while informed donors observe the realized MPCR before contributing. The theoretical analysis predicts that the impact of information on average contributions crucially depends on the generosity level of the population, modeled as a stochastic change in the prosocial preferences. In particular, a less generous population increases contributions substantially in response to good news of higher than expected MPCR and reduces contributions relatively little in response to bad news of lower than expected MPCR. The opposite is true for a more generous population. Thus, the theory predicts that information provision increases (reduces) average contributions when the population is less (more) generous. This prediction finds strong support in a twostage lab experiment. The first stage measures subjects’ generosity in the public good game using an online experiment. The resulting measure is used to create more and less generous groups in the public good lab experiment, which varies the information provided to these groups in the lab. The findings are in line with the theoretical predictions, suggesting that targeted information provision to less generous groups may be more beneficial for public good contributions than uniform information provision.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Notes
 1.
For more information, visit https://www.donorschoose.org/about.
 2.
According to Charity Navigator, the overall contributions to education related causes in the US amounted to $59.77 billion in 2016. For more information, see https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=42.
 3.
 4.
 5.
 6.
 7.
 8.
 9.
In Arifovic and Ledyard’s paper, this term is referred to as the level of altruism. Due to different definitions of altruism in the economics and psychology literature, we opt to avoid confusion by referring to \(\beta _i\) as the individual’s generosity.
 10.
Refer to Section 2.2.2 in Arifovic and Ledyard (2012) for a detailed discussion about the relationship between these wellknown utility specifications. In particular, the linear multiplier that converts the utility specification given by Fehr and Schmidt (1999) to Eq. (1) depends on the group size N, which is fixed in our analysis. Thus, these two specification should give rise to the same equilibrium behavior.
 11.
Fischbacher et al. (2001) find evidence of these types of contribution behavior in the lab, with a third of subjects conforming to the Nash equilibrium prediction and another half behaving as conditional cooperators. Equation (3) reveals that this contribution behavior depends not only on the agent’s individual characteristics captured by \((\beta _i,\gamma _i)\), but also on the MPCR.
 12.
The results in this section readily generalize to a stochastic inequality aversion parameter \(\gamma _i\) as long as \(\gamma _i\) and \(\beta _i\) are independently distributed.
 13.
The use of a distribution function with infinite support ensures that the expected giving is always interior to the endowment and reaches the extreme values of 0 and W only in the limit when \(v\rightarrow \frac{1}{N}\) and \(v\rightarrow 1\), respectively. In addition, the exponential distribution provides a tractable way of varying the strength of the prosocial preferences of the population by changing the parameter \(\lambda\). It is also worth noting that our analysis generalizes to other common distributions on \({\mathbb {R}}^+\), which include the \(\chi ^2\) and the Gamma distributions. The proof of this is available upon request.
 14.
To ease the exposition, we present the theoretical results using a twopoint distribution for the MPCR since it corresponds to our experimental design in Sect. 4, but the theoretical results extend to any arbitrary nondegenerate distribution of the MPCR.
 15.
 16.
We run the Known MPCR and the Unknown MPCR treatments within subjects. Although subjects know that the experiment has two parts, they do not know anything about the second part when they play the first part. We only report the data from the first treatment played since the behavior in the first treatment contaminated the data from the second treatment (i.e. ordering effect).
 17.
Please see our online supplementary material for instructions.
 18.
 19.
The independent draw of the MPCR on the round and the group level eliminates any potential effect coming from the order of the MPCR.
 20.
Please see our online supplementary material for instructions.
 21.
Following the multiple hypothesis testing method proposed by List et al. (2019), we report both the unadjusted p values (Remark 3.1) and the multiplicity adjusted p values (Theorem 3.1). The Mann–Whitney U test also yields very similar p values.
 22.
A similar reasoning can also apply to subjects who contribute everything. Since we have only one subject who contributed everything in all periods, we restrict our attention to only selfish types.
 23.
As per the suggestion of an anonymous referee, we also run an alternative specification that takes into account the contribution behavior only in the last eight periods when determining whether a subject is a potential contributor. This aims to address a potential concern that, even with a stranger matching design, some selfish subjects could be contributing positive amounts early on in the game in order to induce giving by others (specifically by conditional cooperators) in later periods. The estimates from this specification are reported in Table A1 in the online supplementary materials and reveal that our findings are robust to this alternative specification.
 24.
To derive this expression, we have rewritten Eq. (11) as \(R'(v)=\frac{N(N1)}{(Nv1)^2}\frac{1}{\lambda }\left[ e^{\frac{\beta _2(v)\beta _1(v)}{\lambda }}+(1+\gamma )R(v)\right]\). Using this expression, we have derived \(R''(v)\) and \(R'''(v)\), and used the resulting expressions to obtain \(\zeta ({\tilde{v}})\).
References
Andreoni, J. (2006). Leadership giving in charitable fundraising. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 8(1), 1–22.
Andreoni, J., & Payne, A. A. (2013). Charitable giving. Handbook of Public economics, 5, 1–50.
Arifovic, J., & Ledyard, J. (2012). Individual evolutionary learning, otherregarding preferences, and the voluntary contributions mechanism. Journal of Public Economics, 96(9), 808–823.
Barbieri, S., & Malueg, D. A. (2008). Private provision of a discrete public good: Efficient equilibria in the privateinformation contribution game. Economic Theory, 37(1), 51–80.
Barbieri, S., & Malueg, D. A. (2010). Threshold uncertainty in the privateinformation subscription game. Journal of Public Economics, 94(11–12), 848–861.
Bolton, G. E., & Ockenfels, A. (2000). ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity and competition. American Economic Review, 90, 166–193.
Boosey, L., Isaac, R. M., Norton, D., & Stinn, J. (2019). Cooperation, contributor types, and control questions. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2019.101489.
BouluReshef, B., Brott, S., & Zylbersztejn, A. (2017). Does uncertainty deter provision to the public good? Revue économique, 68(5), 785–791.
Brandts, J., & Schram, A. (2001). Cooperation and noise in public goods experiments: Applying the contribution function approach. Journal of Public Economics, 79(2), 399–427.
Brown, A. L., Meer, J., & Williams, J. F. (2017). Social distance and quality ratings in charity choice. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 66, 9–15.
Burlando, R. M., & Guala, F. (2005). Heterogeneous agents in public goods experiments. Experimental Economics, 8(1), 35–54.
Butera, L., & Horn, J. R. (2017). Good News, bad news, and social image: The market for charitable giving. George Mason University Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science (ICES). SSRN https://ssrn.com/abstract=2438230.
Butera, L., & List, J. A. (2017). An economic approach to alleviate the crises of confidence in science: With an application to the public goods game. No. w23335. National Bureau of Economic Research.
Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Cettolin, E., Riedl, A., & Tran, G. (2017). Giving in the face of risk. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 55(2–3), 95–118.
Chan, K. S., et al. (1999). Heterogeneity and the voluntary provision of public goods. Experimental Economics, 2(1), 5–30.
Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 817–69.
Cooper, D. J., & Kagel, J. H. (2016). Otherregarding preferences. In J. H. Kagel & A. E. Roth (Eds.), The handbook of experimental economics, volume 2: The handbook of experimental economics (p. 217). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Dana, J., Weber, R. A., & Kuang, J. X. (2007). Exploiting moral wiggle room: Experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness. Economic Theory, 33(1), 67–80.
de Oliveira, A. C. M., Croson, R. T. A., & Eckel, C. (2015). One bad apple? Heterogeneity and information in public good provision. Experimental Economics, 18(1), 116–135.
Eckel, C. C., De Oliveira, A., & Grossman, P. J. (2007). Is more information always better? An experimental study of charitable giving and Hurricane Katrina. Southern Economic Journal, 74(2), 388–411.
Exley, C. L. (2019). Using charity performance metrics as an excuse not to give. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2018.3268.
Exley, C. L. (2016). Excusing selfishness in charitable giving: The role of risk. The Review of Economic Studies, 83(2), 587–628.
Falk, A., & Fischbacher, U. (2006). A theory of reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 54(2), 293–315.
Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–68.
Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (2006). The economics of fairness, reciprocity and altruismexperimental evidence and new theories. Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, 1, 615–691.
Fischbacher, U. (2007). zTree: Zurich toolbox for readymade economic experiments. Experimental economics, 10(2), 171–178.
Fischbacher, U., Gächter, S., & Fehr, E. (2001). Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Economics Letters, 71(3), 397–404.
Fischbacher, U., Schudy, S., & Teyssier, S. (2014). Heterogeneous reactions to heterogeneity in returns from public goods. Social Choice and Welfare, 43(1), 195–217.
Fong, C. M., & OberholzerGee, F. (2011). Truth in giving: Experimental evidence on the welfare effects of informed giving to the poor. Journal of Public Economics, 95(5), 436–444.
Gächter, S. (2007). Conditional cooperation: Behavioral regularities from the lab and the field and their policy implications. In B. S. Frey & A. Stutzer (Eds.), CESifo seminar series. Economics and psychology: A promising new crossdisciplinary field (pp. 19–50). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gächter, S., & Thöni, C. (2005). Social learning and voluntary cooperation among likeminded people. Journal of the European Economic Association, 3(2–3), 303–314.
Gangadharan, L., & Nemes, V. (2009). Experimental analysis of risk and uncertainty in provisioning private and public goods. Economic Inquiry, 47(1), 146–164.
Garcia, T., Massoni, S., & Villeval, M. C. (2019). Ambiguity and excusedriven behavior in charitable giving. SSRN https://ssrn.com/abstract=3283773.
Greiner, B. (2004). The online recruitment system ORSEE 2.0a guide for the organization of experiments in economics. Working Paper Series in Economics, University of Cologne, 10(23), 63–104.
Gunnthorsdottir, A., Houser, D., & McCabe, K. (2007). Disposition, history and contributions in public goods experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 62(2), 304–315.
Haisley, E. C., & Weber, R. A. (2010). Selfserving interpretations of ambiguity in otherregarding behavior. Games and Economic Behavior, 68(2), 614–625.
Karlan, D., & Wood, D. (2017). The effect of effectiveness: Donor response to aid effectiveness in a direct mail fundraising experiment. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 66(C), 1–8.
Krasteva, S., & Saboury, P. (2019). Informative fundraising: The signaling value of seed money and matching gifts. SSRN https://ssrn.com/abstract=3390008.
Krasteva, S., & Yildirim, H. (2013). (Un) Informed charitable giving. Journal of Public Economics, 106, 14–26.
Kurzban, R., & Houser, D. (2005). Experiments investigating cooperative types in humans: A complement to evolutionary theory and simulations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(5), 1803–1807.
Lange, A., Price, M. K., & Santore, R. (2017). Signaling quality through gifts: Implications for the charitable sector. European Economic Review, 96, 48–61.
Laussel, D., & Palfrey, T. R. (2003). Efficient equilibria in the voluntary contributions mechanism with private information. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 5(3), 449–478.
Ledyard, J. O. (1995). Public goods: A survey of experimental research. In J. H. Kagel & A. E. Roth (Eds.), Handbook of Experimental Economics (pp. 111–194). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Levati, M. V., & Morone, A. (2013). Voluntary contributions with risky and uncertain marginal returns: The importance of the parameter values. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 15(5), 736–744.
Levati, M. V., Morone, A., & Fiore, A. (2009). Voluntary contributions with imperfect information: An experimental study. Public Choice, 138(1–2), 199–216.
List, J. A., Shaikh, A. M., & Yang, X. (2019). Multiple hypothesis testing in experimental economics. Experimental Economics, 22, 773–793.
Marks, M. B., & Croson, R. T. A. (1999). The effect of incomplete information in a threshold public goods experiment. Public Choice, 99(1–2), 103–118.
Menezes, F. M., Monteiro, P. K., & Temimi, A. (2001). Private provision of discrete public goods with incomplete information. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 35(4), 493–514.
Metzger, L., & Günther, I. (2019). Making an impact? The relevance of information on aid effectiveness for charitable giving: A laboratory experiment. Journal of Development Economics, 136, 18–33.
Moffatt, P. G. (2015). Experimetrics: Econometrics for experimental economics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Null, C. (2011). Warm glow, information, and inefficient charitable giving. Journal of Public Economics, 95(5), 455–465.
Ones, U., & Putterman, L. (2007). The ecology of collective action: A public goods and sanctions experiment with controlled group formation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 62(4), 495–521.
Page, T., Putterman, L., & Unel, B. (2005). Voluntary association in public goods experiments: Reciprocity, mimicry and efficiency. The Economic Journal, 115(506), 1032–1053.
Portillo, J. E., & Stinn, J. (2018). Overhead Aversion: Do some types of overhead matter more than others? Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 72, 40–50.
Potters, J., Sefton, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2005). After you—Endogenous sequencing in voluntary contribution games. Journal of Public Economics, 89(8), 1399–1419.
Potters, J., Sefton, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2007). Leadingbyexample and signaling in voluntary contribution games: An experimental study. Economic Theory, 33(1), 169–182.
Rabin, M. (1993). Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. The American Economic Review, 83, 1281–1302.
Shang, J., & Croson, R. (2009). A field experiment in charitable contribution: The impact of social information on the voluntary provision of public goods. The Economic Journal, 119(540), 1422–1439.
Stoddard, B. V. (2015). Probabilistic production of a public good. Economics Bulletin, 35(1), 37–52.
Stoddard, B. (2017). Risk in payoffequivalent appropriation and provision games. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 69, 78–82.
Tella, D., Rafael, R. P.T., Babino, A., & Sigman, M. (2015). Conveniently upset: Avoiding altruism by distorting beliefs about others’ altruism. American Economic Review, 105(11), 3416–42.
Théroude, V., & Zylbersztejn, A. (2019). Cooperation in a risky world. Journal of Public Economic Theory. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpet.12366.
Thöni, C., & Volk, S. (2018). Conditional cooperation: Review and refinement. Economics Letters, 171, 37–40.
Vesterlund, L. (2003). The informational value of sequential fundraising. Journal of Public Economics, 87(3–4), 627–657.
Vesterlund, L. (2016). Using experimental methods to understand why and how we give to charity. In J. H. Kagel & A. E. Roth (Eds.), The handbook of experimental economics, volume 2: The handbook of experimental economics (pp. 91–152). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Alex Brown, Marco Castillo, Catherine Eckel, Dan Fragiadakis, Ragan Petrie, and the graduate students of the Economic Research Lab at Texas A&M for providing feedback during the development part of this project, and Caleb Cox, Sarah Jacobson, Lester Lusher, Jonathan Meer, and Andis Sofianos for their invaluable comments on earlier drafts. We are grateful to the faculty at the Department of Economics at Texas A&M for providing feedback during Fourth Year PhD Student Presentations and to Shawna Campbell for proofreading and editing the paper. We would also like to thank two anonymous referees and the editor for their insightful comments, and the participants at the ESA North American Meeting 2016 in Tucson, AZ; 2017 5th Spring School in Behavioral Economics at UCSD; 2017 Seventh Biennial Conference on Social Dilemmas at University of Massachusetts Amherst; 2017 ESA World Meeting in San Diego, CA; 68 Degree North Conference on Behavioral Economics 2017 in Svolvær, Norway; 2017 Science of Philanthropy Initiative Conference at University of Chicago; SEA 2017 annual meeting in Tampa, FL; and 2018 NYUCESS Experimental Political Science Conference at New York University. This project was funded by College of Liberal Arts Seed Grant Program and partially funded by National Science Foundation Dissertation Improvement Grant (SES1756994).
Author information
Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Appendices
Appendix 1
Proof of Lemma 1
For the purpose of this proof, note that
and
implying that \(\frac{\partial \beta _2(v,\gamma )}{\partial v}=(1+\gamma )\frac{\partial \beta _1(v)}{\partial v}\).
To establish that \({\overline{g}}(v)\) is increasing in v, note by Eq. (5) that
Moreover, since \(\beta _i\sim Exp(1/\lambda )\), \(R(v)=\frac{1e^{\beta _1(v)/\lambda }}{e^{\beta _2(v,\gamma )/\lambda }}\). Therefore, differentiating R(v) with respect to v yields
where the last equality follows from Eqs. (8) and (9). Then, \(R'(v)<0\) and Eq. (10) immediately implies that \({\overline{g}}^{\prime }(v)>0\).
To show that \(\lim _{v\rightarrow \frac{1}{N}}{\overline{g}}(v)=0\), we need to show that \(\lim _{v\rightarrow \frac{1}{N}}R(v)=\infty\). Note that \(\lim _{v\rightarrow \frac{1}{N}}\beta _{1}(v)=\lim _{v\rightarrow \frac{1}{N} }\beta _{2}(v,\gamma )=\infty\). Therefore, \(\lim _{v\rightarrow \frac{1}{N} }e^{\beta _2(v,\gamma )/\lambda }=\lim _{v\rightarrow \frac{1}{N}}e^{\beta _1(v)/\lambda }=0\), resulting in \(\lim _{v\rightarrow \frac{1}{N}}R(v)=\infty\). To see that \(\lim _{v\rightarrow 1}{\overline{g}}(v)=W\) note that \(\lim _{v\rightarrow 1} \beta _{1}(v)=0\) and \(\lim _{v\rightarrow 1}\beta _2(v,\gamma )=\gamma\). This implies that \(\lim _{v\rightarrow 1} R(v)=0\) and \(\lim _{v\rightarrow 1}{\overline{g}}(v)=W\).
To establish the existence and uniqueness of \({\tilde{v}}(\lambda )\) and its corresponding properties, we first derive \({\overline{g}}^{\prime \prime }(v)\) by differentiating \({\overline{g}}^{\prime }(v)\) with respect to v, yielding
Differentiating Eq. (11) with respect to v and simplifying yields
Substituting for \(R^{\prime }(v)\) and \(R^{\prime \prime }(v)\) in Eq. (12) and simplifying results in
Note that
Substituting for R(v) in the above expression and further simplifying yields
Note that
since \(\lim _{v\rightarrow \frac{1}{N}} \beta _1(v)=\lim _{v\rightarrow \frac{1}{N}} \beta _2(v,\gamma )=\infty\), and
since \(\lim _{v\rightarrow 1} \beta _1(v)=0\) and \(\lim _{v\rightarrow 1} \beta _2(v,\gamma )=\gamma\). Note that \(\lim _{\lambda \rightarrow 0}\Omega ^1(\lambda )=\infty\) and \(\lim _{\lambda \rightarrow \infty }\Omega ^1(\lambda )=2\). Moreover, the term in brackets in Eq. (17) is strictly decreasing in \(\lambda\), implying the existence a unique \({\tilde{\lambda }}>0\) such that \(\Omega ^1({\tilde{\lambda }})=0\). For \(\lambda >{\tilde{\lambda }}\), \(\Omega ^1(\lambda )<0\) and thus \(\lim _{v\rightarrow 1} \Omega (v,\lambda )<0\). Note that \(\lim _{v\rightarrow \frac{1}{N}} \Omega (v,\lambda )>0\) and \(\lim _{v\rightarrow 1} \Omega (v,\lambda )<0\) together imply the existence of \({\tilde{v}}(\lambda )\in (\frac{1}{N},1)\) that solves \(\Omega ({\tilde{v}}(\lambda ),\lambda )=0\).
To establish the uniqueness of \({\tilde{v}}(\lambda )\), it suffices to show that \(\frac{\partial \Omega ({\tilde{v}}(\lambda ),\lambda )}{\partial v}<0\). Note that by Eq. (12), \(\Omega ({\tilde{v}}(\lambda ),\lambda )=0\) can be rewritten as
Thus, \(\frac{\partial \Phi ({\tilde{v}}(\lambda ))}{\partial v}<0\) implies \(\frac{\partial \Omega ({\tilde{v}}(\lambda ),\lambda )}{\partial v}<0\). Differentiating \(\Phi (v)\) and evaluating at \({\tilde{v}}(\lambda )\) results in
where we have taken into account that \(1+R({\tilde{v}})=\frac{2[R'({\tilde{v}})]^2}{R''({\tilde{v}})}\). By Eq. (11), \(R'({\tilde{v}})<0\) and by Eq. (13), \(R''({\tilde{v}})>0\). Therefore,\(\frac{\partial \Phi ({\tilde{v}}(\lambda ))}{\partial v}<0\) requires \(3[R''({\tilde{v}})]^22R'''({\tilde{v}})R'({\tilde{v}})=\zeta ({\tilde{v}})>0\). Somewhat tedious, but straightforward algebra yields:^{Footnote 24}
Since \(R'(v)<0\), it follows immediately that \(\zeta ({\tilde{v}})>0\) and thus \(\frac{\partial \Phi ({\tilde{v}}(\lambda ))}{\partial v}<0\). This establishes the uniqueness of \({\tilde{v}}(\lambda )\). To establish property 1), note that by the continuity of \(\Omega (v,\lambda )\) in v and Eq. (16), it follows that \(\Omega (v,\lambda )>0\) for all \(v<{\tilde{v}}(\lambda )\), implying that \({\overline{g}}''(v)>0\) for all \(v<{\tilde{v}}(\lambda )\). The uniqness of \({\tilde{v}}(\lambda )\) also implies that for all \(\lambda >{\tilde{\lambda }}\) (i.e. \(\Omega ^1(\lambda )<0\)), \(\Omega (v,\lambda )<0\) for all \(v>{\tilde{v}}(\lambda )\). This, in turn, implies that \({\overline{g}}''(v)<0\) for all \(v>{\tilde{v}}(\lambda )\).
To establish property (2), note first that the uniqueness of \({\tilde{v}}(\lambda )\) implies that for \(\lambda <{\tilde{\lambda }}\), \(\Omega (v,\lambda )>0\) for any \(v\in \left( \frac{1}{N},1\right)\). Therefore, for \(\lambda <{\tilde{\lambda }}\), \({\tilde{v}}(\lambda )=1\). For \(\lambda >{\tilde{\lambda }}\), implicit differentiation of \(\Omega ({\tilde{v}}(\lambda ),\lambda )=0\) results in
Recall that \(\frac{\partial \Phi ({\tilde{v}}(\lambda ))}{\partial v}<0\), implies \(\frac{\partial \Omega ({\tilde{v}}(\lambda ),\lambda )}{\partial v}<0\). Thus, it suffices to show that \(\frac{\partial \Omega ({\tilde{v}}(\lambda ),\lambda )}{\partial \lambda }<0\). For this purpose, let \({\tilde{\beta }}_{1}({\tilde{v}},\lambda )=\frac{\beta _1({\tilde{v}})}{\lambda }\), \({\tilde{\beta }}_{2}({\tilde{v}},\lambda ,\gamma )=\frac{\beta _{2}({\tilde{v}},\gamma )}{\lambda }\), and \(\omega ({\tilde{\beta }}_1,{\tilde{\beta }}_2)=2\frac{1+\gamma (1e^{{\tilde{\beta }}_{1}})}{e^{{\tilde{\beta }}_{2}}+1e^{{\tilde{\beta }}_{1}}}\frac{1+\gamma }{1+\gamma (1e^{{\tilde{\beta }}_{1}})}\). Then, \(\Omega ({\tilde{v}},\lambda )=0\) can be rewritten as
Differentiating the above expression w.r.t. v yields
where we have substituted for \(\frac{\partial \beta _1({\tilde{v}})}{\partial v}\) and \(\frac{\partial \beta _2({\tilde{v}},\gamma )}{\partial v}\) in the second equation using Eqs. (8) and (9). The strict inequality follows by our earlier result. Similarly, differentiating \(\Omega ({\tilde{v}},\lambda )\) w.r.t. \(\lambda\) results in
The first equality follows from \(\Omega ({\tilde{v}},\lambda )=0\), the second equality follows from substituting for \(\beta _2({\tilde{v}},\gamma )\) from Eq. (9) in the first one, and the last equality is derived by substituting for \(\beta _1({\tilde{v}})\) and rearranging the terms. It is straightforward to verify that \(\frac{\partial \omega ({\tilde{\beta }}_1,\tilde{\beta _2})}{\partial {\tilde{\beta }}_2}>0\) and thus \(\frac{\partial \Omega ({\tilde{v}},\lambda )}{\partial v}<0\) implies that \(\frac{\partial \Omega ({\tilde{v}},\lambda )}{\partial \lambda }<0\). Therefore, by Eq. (18), \({\tilde{v}}^{\prime }(\lambda )<0\) for \(\lambda >{\tilde{\lambda }}\).
Finally, to establish that \(\lim _{\lambda \rightarrow \infty } {\tilde{v}}(\lambda )=\frac{1}{N}\), note that Eq. (15) implies that \(\lim _{\lambda \rightarrow \infty } \Omega (v,\lambda )=2\frac{Nv1}{N1}\). By definition, \(\Omega ({\tilde{v}}(\lambda ),\lambda )=0\) for \(\lambda >{\tilde{\lambda }}\). Therefore,
This completes the proof. \(\square\)
Proof of Proposition 1
Given \(\frac{1}{N}<v_L<v_H<1\), by Lemma 1, there exist \(\lambda _1>0\) such that \({\tilde{v}}(\lambda _1)=v_H\) and \(\lambda _2>\lambda _1\) such that \({\tilde{v}}(\lambda _2)=v_L\). Furthermore, by Lemma 1, \({\overline{g}}(v)\) is convex for all \(v<v_H\) if \(\lambda \le \lambda _1\). Thus, by definition of convexity,
Analogously, for \(\lambda \ge \lambda _2\), \({\overline{g}}(v)\) is concave for all \(v\ge v_L\), implying the reverse inequality. \(\square\)
Appendix 2: Behavioral types in the conditional contribution game
A total of 360 subjects participated in the first stage of this experiment and played the Fischbacher et al. (2001) conditional contribution game. Using this data, we classify subjects’ contribution behavior into the following categories:

Conditional Cooperators About 73.6% of our subjects (265 subjects) are classified as the conditional cooperative types. Based on their contribution schedule, we further classify them into the following three distinct categories:

ProSocial Conditional Cooperators 11.7% of our subjects (42 subjects) are classified as prosocial conditional cooperators. Their contributions are either equal to or more than the average contributions of others. On average, their contributions lie above the 45 degree line. The Spearman rank correlation coefficients of prosocial conditional cooperators are always positive and highly significant.

Perfect Conditional Cooperators 16.9% (61 subjects) are classified as perfect conditional cooperators. These subjects always perfectly match the contributions of others and thus their contributions on average lie exactly on the 45 degree line. Their Spearman rank correlation coefficients are equal to 1 and highly significant.

Weak Conditional Cooperators: 45% (162 subjects) are classified as weak conditional cooperators. The average contributions made by these subjects lie below the 45 degree line. While these subjects mostly exhibit weakly monotonic and increasing contribution behavior, 6.7% of our subjects (24 subjects) show some slight deviations from the increasing trend. The Spearman rank correlation coefficients of weak conditional cooperators are always positive and highly significant except for one subject whose coefficient is not significant.


Free Riders 10% (36 subjects) are classified as freeriders or selfish. Independent of the others’ average contributions, these subjects never contribute anything.

HumpShaped Contributors About 6.7% (24 subjects) are classified as humpshaped contributors. These subjects’ contributions are increasing in others’ average contributions but up to a level (about 10 tokens on average). Beyond this level, their contributions start decreasing as others’ average contributions increase.

Unconditional Full Cooperators 1.7% of our subjects (6 subjects) are classified as unconditional full cooperators. They always contribute all of their endowment independent of others’ average contribution.

Other We classify the remaining 8% (29 subjects) as other. While, 3.9% (14 subjects) exhibits random behavior, about 3.6% (13 subjects) contributed a fixed amount such as 1 or 5 tokens with sometimes slight deviations. Interestingly, the contribution behavior for the 0.5% of subjects (2 subjects) exhibit a reserve humpshape.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Aksoy, B., Krasteva, S. When does less information translate into more giving to public goods?. Exp Econ 23, 1148–1177 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683020096431
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
Keywords
 Information provision
 Linear public good game
 Otherregarding preferences
 Lab experiment
JEL Classification
 H41
 C72
 C90