Do nudges crowd out prosocial behavior?

Abstract

Both theory on motivational crowding and recent empirical evidence suggest that nudging may sometimes backfire and actually crowd out prosocial behavior, due to decreased intrinsic motivation and warm glow. In this study, we tested this claim by investigating the effects of three types of nudges (default nudge, social norm nudge, and moral nudge) on donations to charity in a preregistered online experiment (N = 1098). Furthermore, we manipulated the transparency of the nudges across conditions by explicitly informing subjects of the nudges that were used. Our results show no indication that nudges crowd out prosocial behavior; instead, all three nudges increased donations. The positive effects of the nudges were driven by the subjects who did not perceive the nudges as attempts to manipulate their behavior, while donations among subjects who felt that the nudges were manipulative remained unaffected. Subjects’ self-reported happiness with their choice also remained unaffected. Thus, we find no indication that nudges crowded out warm glow when acting altruistically. Generally, our results are good news for the proponents of nudges in public policy, since they suggest that concerns about unintended motivational crowding effects on prosocial behavior have been overstated.

Transparency and nudging: an overview and methodological critique of empirical investigations

“…A handful experiments have studied other nudges than defaults. Gråd et al (2021) found no influence from disclosure of a social norm or a moral appeal nudge in an experiment on charitable giving. Zhuo et al (2023) studied a list order salience nudge (products displayed in order of carbon footprint) to encourage green consumption, with the same result.…”

“…Among the empirical studies, the largest group of experiments concern default nudges applied in consequential (real stakes) choices. Here, the effects of message-induced transparency have been tested with charity donations (Bruns et al, 2018;Michaelsen et al, 2020Michaelsen et al, , 2021aGråd et al, 2021), agreement to extra low-paid/unpaid work in research studies (Steffel et al, 2016;Michaelsen et al, 2021b, experiment 1b;Paunov et al, 2019aPaunov et al, , 2019bPaunov et al, , 2020Wachner et al, 2020Wachner et al, , 2021van Rookhuijzen et al, 2023) and food choices (Steffel et al, 2016, experiment 1c; notably the only field experiment in this category). Gråd et al is the sole study reporting increased transparency to reduce the impact of the nudge, with a drop from 62% to 50% of participants partly donating a 50¢ bonus to charity.…”

Breaking the chain with individual gain? Investigating the moral intensity of COVID-19 digital contact tracing

“…These norms can be made salient, for instance, by including information about other people's CWA usage behavior in marketing campaigns. Such social norm nudges have already been shown to be effective in the context of prosocial behavior ( Gråd, Erlandsson, & Tinghög, 2021 ) or pro-environmental behavior (e.g., Farrow, Grolleau, & Ibanez, 2017 ; Kaiser, Arnold, & Otto, 2014 ). Such similarities are not surprising, since pro-environmental and prosocial behaviors most likely stem from the same individual propensity ( Otto, Pensini, et al, 2021 ).…”

Social incentives as nudges for agricultural knowledge diffusion and willingness to pay for certified seeds: Experimental evidence from Uganda

“…Furthermore, people may react with a psychological reactance in situations where they feel that they are being manipulated into making certain choices ( Gråd et al, 2021 ). Although nudges, in theory, should preserve the freedom of choice, they can still amount to some level of pressure or result in a feeling that one should behave in a certain way.…”