Nudging: The unexpected impact on observers' inference of donors' prosocial behavior

Abstract

We proposed that although nudging may encourage participation, being nudged may undermine the intrinsic motivation of a donor's prosocial behavior in the eyes of an observer. In 3 studies spanning various contexts of prosocial nudging (Ns = 198, 141, and 267 university students, respectively), we demonstrated that observers perceived a donor who was (vs. was not) nudged as less intrinsically motivated to help others. The findings suggested that the perceived motive of a donor's prosocial behavior is inferred by observers not only from the behavior itself but also from whether or not the behavior is a product of nudging. By investigating the consequences of nudging from the observer's perspective, we have provided a new lens for understanding the role of nudging in the prosocial domain.

Charity ugliness premium: Donors' empathy for unattractiveness during the COVID‐19 pandemic and implications for charity advertising

“…This study contributes to prosocial literature and practice in several ways. Research on the topic has surged (e.g., Jang & Chu, 2022;Urbonavicius et al, 2019;Winterich et al, 2009;Wu & Jin, 2020) since Bendapudi et al (1996) called for academic guidance to help charities strategically promote prosocial behavior.…”

“…This study contributes to prosocial literature and practice in several ways. Research on the topic has surged (e.g., Jang & Chu, 2022; Urbonavicius et al, 2019; Winterich et al, 2009; Wu & Jin, 2020) since Bendapudi et al (1996) called for academic guidance to help charities strategically promote prosocial behavior. Scholars have explored the effectiveness of various visual strategies, including pictures combined with text, photos portraying victims' particular facial expressions, and specially colored images; they conclude that visuals that generate donors' negative emotions, such as sadness, fear, and guilt, might be effective (Choi et al, 2016; Septianto & Paramita, 2021; Teng et al, 2019; Urbonavicius et al, 2019).…”

Do nudges crowd out prosocial behavior?

“…For both donors and nondonors, we found no differences in happiness with choice depending on whether subjects were nudged or not. Wu and Jin (2020) found that the use of nudges tarnished the perception of people behaving prosocially, by making observers think that prosocial behavior was less genuine. Our findings, thus, indicate that this effect does not extend to the assessment of own behavior influenced by nudges.…”

“…However, in recent research, Savary and Goldsmith (2020) cast doubt on this conclusion, instead finding evidence suggesting that public recognition undermines the intrinsic motivations for altruistic acts. Similarly, Wu and Jin (2020) found that nudges involving public recognition tarnished the perception of people behaving prosocially, by making observers think that prosocial behavior was a result of nudging, rather than spontaneous prosocial preferences. Little is, however, known about whether such counterproductive effects extend to actual behavior.…”

Options to design more ethical and still successful default nudges: a review and recommendations

“…Choices add up and contribute to an individual's selfperception and identity (Vugts et al, 2020). When asked for a charitable donation, individuals are perceived as less intrinsically motivated if their choice was subject to a default (Wu & Jin, 2020), which reduces a choice's contribution to identity. Similarly, donating organs is seen as more altruistic in countries in which citizens must opt-in to donate in contrast to opt-out regimes (Davidai et al, 2012).…”