Historically social scientists and economic enthusiasts have researched the justification and rationale behind certain virtuous yet negligible acts. The research has extensively interrogated the area of donations and reasons for their preference. Every election year a citizen endures endless queues to exercise their vote even though it is apparent that their vote may have little or no impact on the electoral outcome (Green and Hojman. 2007, p70).
A student recycles paper and plastic despite the fact that the impact of the action he takes makes a negligible impression on the status of the environment (Kalai, Rubinstein, and Spiegler 2002, pp 2481). Among social scientists, there is common ground that the rationale for these actions is that the actors anticipate a warm glow payoff derived from the initiative which they consider to be moral or virtuous.
Feddersen and Sandroni (2009, p7) indigenize this position to support a voter model that subscribes to the reasoning that such a payoff explains the impact of groups of voters acting in consort. As such, the outcome of a vote for a particular candidate can be greatly influenced by such group consorts hence the relevance of the theory. Camerer et al (2005, p50) share a similar view in material respects and additionally acclaim its relevance in regional or sector-based constructs that act in consort to form a given opinion. Eliaz and Ok (2006, p56) proceed to experiment on the truth or otherwise of the ethical voter approach through laboratory experiments whose objective is to identify the relevance or otherwise of the warm glow theory in voter opinion a view that is shared by Ok, Ortoleva and Riella (2008, p87).
There has been very limited interest in the effect or otherwise of the warm glow effect on the opinion and action of students. From early years as documented by Hungerman (2007, p12) alongside Gul and Pesendorfer (2005a p429) as reviewed by Manzini and Mariotti (2007b, p34) greater portion of research has focussed on the effects or otherwise of the theory on voters and opinion movers.
Even more recently Crumpler and Grossman (2008, p1011) have formed the opinion that there is little need for ethical voter models in explaining laboratory-based experiments a view that was supported by Nunes and Schokkaert (2003, p231).
The embodiment of the warm glow theory as generalized by the canonical model of altruism evaluates the conflict of forces for and against pubic good Dufwenberg and Kirchsteiger (2004, p268), admits that there has been no vivid empirical consensus on the ideal approach to this and related issues. In this research, we will attempt to interrogate the place that the warm glow theory has in the charitable initiatives of university students as suggested by Manzini and Mariotti. (2007a, p101).
We will pursue this question under two main hypotheses. The first being that women are more likely to donate to charity than men because of the warm glow theory. The second hypothesis will be that students who donate to charity are not affected by the warm glow theory.
We will seek to fill the lack of empirical consensus in research initiatives by indigenizing our research using the gender and age question by exploring the student approach and perspective (Masatlioglu and Ok 2007, p49). The research adopts a descriptive design, which will coherently document the results of the experiments on the two hypotheses. The research will serve as a reference point in interpreting student opinion and in the formulation of student approaches by curriculum developers (Feddersen and Sandroni 2009, p7).
This will go a long way in driving opinion and ideology amongst students. The research also acts as a reference point for further research in the field of student affairs and more importantly social-economical preference in regards to charity Gul and Pesendorfer (2005b p429).
References
Camerer, et al 2005, ‘Neuroeconomics: How Neuroscience Can Inform Economics’, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XLIII, p 50.
Crumpler, H & Grossman, J 2008, ‘An experimental test of warm glow giving, Journal of Public Economics, Vol 92, (5), PP. 1011–1021.
Dufwenberg M and Kirchsteiger, G 2004, ‘A theory of sequential reciprocity, Games and Economic Behaviour, Vol 47 (2), pp. 268–298.
Eliaz, K & Ok, A 2006, ‘Indifference or indecisiveness? Choice-theoretic Foundations of Incomplete Preferences’, Games and Economic Behavior, vol 56, no. 1, pp. 61—86.
Feddersen T & Sandroni, A 2009, The Foundations of Warm-Glow Theory. Web.
Green, J & Hojman, D 2007, Choice, Rationality and Welfare Measurement, Harvard University, Harvard.
Gul, F. and W. Pesendorfer, M 2005b, The Case for Mindless Economics, University of London, Queen Mary.
Gul, F & Pesendorfer, M 2005a, ‘The Revealed Preference Theory of Changing Tastes’, Review of Economic Studies, vol 72 (2), pp. 429—448.
Hungerman, M 2007, ‘Race and Charitable Church Activity’, Working Paper, Vol 5 (2), pp. 5-20.
Kalai, G., A. Rubinstein, & Spiegler, R 2002, ‘Rationalizing Choice Functions by Multiple Rationales,” Econometrica, Vol 70 (6), pp. 2481-2488.
Manzini, P & Mariotti,M 2007, Boundedly Rational Choice, Cycles, and Menu Effects: Theory and Experimental Evidence, University of London. Queen Mary.
Manzini, P & Mariotti, M (2007a) ‘Sequentially Rationalizable Choice’, American Economic Review, Vol 97-5, pp. 1824-1839.
Masatlioglu, et al 2007, Status Quo Bias and Reference-Dependent Procedural Decision Making, University of London. Queen Mary.
Nunes. P and Schokkaert E 2003, Identifying the warm glow effect in contingent valuation, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management Volume 45, no. 2, pp. 231–245.
Ok, E., P. Ortoleva, S and Riella, G 2008, Rational Choice with Endogenous Reference Points, University of London. Queen Mary.