The differential impact of social norms cues on charitable contributions

Using a field experiment, we test the channel by which normative cues affect the decision process to donate to a public library. Our treatments consist of a reciprocity cue or an eyespots cue that is placed on the solicitation materials mailed out to potential donors during a public library fundraising drive. The data are consistent with a two stage decision process by which individuals first decide whether to make a donation and then decide how much to donate. We show that both cues significantly affect donation behavior by enhancing the intensity of the behavior while only one cue enhances the likelihood of engaging in the behavior. These results imply that what might look like a subtle or even fickle effect of normative cues on behavior is an economically sizable effect when we take into account what aspect of the decision process is affected by the cue.

[1]  Bettina Rockenbach,et al.  Spying on Others Evolves , 2007, Science.

[2]  H. Gintis.  The Bounds of Reason: Game Theory and the Unification of the Behavioral Sciences , 2014 .

[3]  Ruth Mace,et al.  People recognise when they are really anonymous in an economic game , 2010 .

[4]  Erin L. Krupka,et al.  Identifying Social Norms Using Coordination Games: Why Does Dictator Game Sharing Vary? Identifying Social Norms Using Coordination Games: Why Does Dictator Game Sharing Vary? Identifying Social Norms Using Coordination Games: Why Does Dictator Game Sharing Vary? , 2022 .

[5]  J. List,et al.  Testing for Altruism and Social Pressure in Charitable Giving , 2009, The quarterly journal of economics.

[6]  S. Kitayama,et al.  Minimal Social Cues in the Dictator Game , 2009 .

[7]  Jeffrey M. Wooldridge,et al.  Solutions Manual and Supplementary Materials for Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data , 2003 .

[8]  M. Bateson,et al.  Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world setting , 2006, Biology Letters.

[9]  R. Cialdini.  CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Crafting Normative Messages to Protect the Environment , 2022 .

[10]  J. G. Cragg.  Some Statistical Models for Limited Dependent Variables with Application to the Demand for Durable Goods , 1971 .

[11]  Jen Shang,et al.  A Field Experiment in Charitable Contribution: The Impact of Social Information on the Voluntary Provision of Public Goods , 2009 .

[12]  S. Siegel.  DECISION MAKING AND LEARNING UNDER VARYING CONDITIONS OF REINFORCEMENT * , 1961 .

[13]  Ian S. Penton-Voak,et al.  The watching eyes effect in the Dictator Game: it's not how much you give, it's being seen to give something , 2013 .

[14]  Adriaan R. Soetevent,et al.  Anonymity in Giving in a Natural Context : A Field Experiment in 30 Churches , 2005 .

[15]  Hiromitsu Kobayashi,et al.  Unique morphology of the human eye , 1997, Nature.

[16]  Hiromitsu Kobayashi,et al.  Unique morphology of the human eye and its adaptive meaning: comparative studies on external morphology of the primate eye. , 2001, Journal of human evolution.

[17]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  Learning Innate Face Preferences , 2003, Neural Computation.

[18]  Justin M. Rao,et al.  Avoiding The Ask : A Field Experiment on Altruism , Empathy , and Charitable Giving ∗ , 2011 .

[19]  E. Fehr,et al.  Eyes are on us, but nobody cares: are eye cues relevant for strong reciprocity? , 2009, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[20]  James Andreoni,et al.  Why free ride?: Strategies and learning in public goods experiments , 1988 .

[21]  R. Cialdini.  Influence: Science and Practice , 1984 .

[22]  Vladas Griskevicius,et al.  Invoking Social Norms , 2007 .

[23]  D. Fessler,et al.  Nobody's watching? Subtle cues affect generosity in an anonymous economic game. , 2005 .

[24]  V. Bruce,et al.  Do the eyes have it? Cues to the direction of social attention , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[25]  Steven D. Levitt,et al.  What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World , 2007 .

[26]  J. Andreoni.  IMPURE ALTRUISM AND DONATIONS TO PUBLIC GOODS: A THEORY OF WARM-GLOW GIVING* , 1990 .

[27]  Terence C Burnham,et al.  Engineering Human Cooperation , 2007, Human nature.

[28]  Mathias Ekström.  Do watching eyes affect charitable giving? Evidence from a field experiment , 2012 .

[29]  Kai Hiraishi,et al.  An eye-like painting enhances the expectation of a good reputation. , 2011 .

[30]  M. Tomasello,et al.  Reliance on head versus eyes in the gaze following of great apes and human infants: the cooperative eye hypothesis. , 2007, Journal of human evolution.

[31]  M. Farah,et al.  The inverted face inversion effect in prosopagnosia: Evidence for mandatory, face-specific perceptual mechanisms , 1995, Vision Research.

[32]  N. Emery,et al.  The eyes have it: the neuroethology, function and evolution of social gaze , 2000, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[33]  L. Cosmides,et al.  The Adapted mind : evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture , 1992 .

[34]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Visions of rationality , 1998, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[35]  E. Ostrom.  Collective action and the evolution of social norms , 2000, Journal of Economic Perspectives.

[36]  J. Andreoni.  Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence , 1989, Journal of Political Economy.

[37]  Daniel John Zizzo,et al.  Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments , 2008 .

[38]  D. Kahneman.  Thinking, Fast and Slow , 2011 .

[39]  Carl A. Kallgren,et al.  A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. , 1990 .