Social comparison nudges—Guessing the norm increases charitable giving

Bartke, Simon; Friedl, Andreas; Gelhaar, Felix; Reh, Laura

doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2016.12.023

Cited by 45 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…7, pp. 2801-2819, © 2019 taxpayers do, and this social comparison could also increase compliance by appealing to a desire to conform to the social norm that tax compliance is socially considered as appropriate behavior (Cullis and Lewis 1997, Wenzel 2004, Bartke et al 2017. In this respect, the Fairness treatment may affect tax compliance through both a focusing effect, by drawing taxpayers' attention to the norm, and an information effect, by making taxpayers aware of how many others follow the norm (Krupka and Weber 2009).…”

Section: Main Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

You’ve Got Mail: A Randomized Field Experiment on Tax Evasion

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We report from a large-scale randomized field experiment conducted on a unique sample of more than 15,000 taxpayers in Norway who were likely to have misreported their foreign income. By randomly manipulating a letter from the tax authorities, we cleanly identify that moral suasion and the perceived detection probability play a crucial role in shaping taxpayer behavior. The moral letter mainly works on the intensive margin, while the detection letter has a strong effect on the extensive margin. We further show that only the detection letter has long-term effects on tax compliance. This paper was accepted by Yan Chen, behavioral economics.

show abstract

Section: Main Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

You’ve Got Mail: A Randomized Field Experiment on Tax Evasion

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We demonstrate this indirect effect on donation likelihood (Study 4.1), willingness, and behavior (both Study 4.2). Descriptive norms have previously been shown to influence a range of socially desirable behavior, including charitable giving (Agerström et al, 2016;Bartke et al, 2017;Croson et al, 2009;McDonald et al, 2013;Nolan et al, 2008). The current study confirms and extends that evidence base by demonstrating that the perceived norms of group members themselves can be influenced by institutional signals (i.e., government policy and leader rhetoric) and can explain observed instances of crowding in.…”

Section: Crowding In and Crowding Out: Support For The Norm Divergencsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…Social norms provide cues to group members about what is expected in a given context (e.g., Cialdini et al, 1990). Perceptions of group norms can influence a range of socially desirable attitudes and behaviors (Jacobson, Jacobson, & Hood, 2015;Kallgren, Reno, & Cialdini, 2000;McDonald, Fielding, & Louis, 2013;Nolan, Schultz, Cialdini, Goldstein, & Griskevicius, 2008;Reno, Cialdini, & Kallgren, 1993;Terry & Hogg, 1996)-including charitable giving (Agerström, Carlsson, Nicklasson, & Guntell, 2016;Bartke, Friedl, Gelhaar, & Reh, 2017;Croson et al, 2009; J. R. Smith & McSweeney, 2007). We propose that government policies may influence perceptions of national group norms, which in turn affect private giving.…”

Section: Perceived Group Norms Affect Attitudes and Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two categories of norms are usefully distinguished-descriptive and injunctive (Cialdini et al, 1990 Although perceptions of descriptive and injunctive norms are generally associated (Eriksson, Strimling, & Coultas, 2015), they remain theoretically distinct (Cialdini et al, 1990). Both descriptive norms (Agerström et al, 2016;Bartke et al, 2017;Croson et al, 2009;McDonald et al, 2013;Nolan et al, 2008) and injunctive norms (Kallgren et al, 2000;Reno et al, 1993) can influence behavior independently; although it is important to also consider them jointly as they sometimes pull in different directions (Cialdini et al, 1990;Jacobson, Mortensen, & Cialdini, 2011).…”

Section: Perceived Group Norms Affect Attitudes and Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Toward a triadic understanding of charitable giving: how donors, beneficiaries, fundraisers, and social contexts influence donation decisions

Chapman¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This thesis applies social psychological theories about intergroup relations (e.g., Social Identity Theory, Tajfel, 1981; the Intergroup Helping Relations as Status Relations model, Nadler, 2002) to investigate the process and outcomes of charitable giving. Moving beyond the traditional focus on studying donors, this thesis uses a mixed-methods approach (surveys, experiments, thematic analysis, and literature review) to show that charitable giving is triadic, relational, and contextualized. That is, decisions about donations are informed by a triad of actors (donors, beneficiaries, and fundraisers), the relationships between them, and the wider social context. Chapter 1 provides a general overview of previous scholarly work on charitable giving and key psychological theories identified as relevant to my approach. Findings from Chapters 2 and 3 confirm that beneficiaries affect donor choices and that the relationships (e.g., shared identities) between particular donors and particular beneficiaries are especially important. Chapter 2 comprises two surveys of confirmed (N = 675) and self-reported (N = 376) donors, which show that donors are not universally generous. Instead, consistent with the social identity approach (Tajfel, 1981; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher & Wetherell, 1987), donors prefer to support charities that align with their social groups in meaningful ways. Chapter 3 goes on to present thematic analyses of responses to the question of why donors support their favorite charity (N = 1,849 from 117 countries). Results show a self/other dichotomy in donor motivation: donors are more likely to reference the self when explaining giving to religious and research charities, but are more likely to reference the other (i.e., beneficiary) when explaining giving to social service, animal, or international charities. In combination, Chapters 4 and 5 demonstrate that social contexts affect charitable responses, in part by changing the perceived relations between donors and beneficiaries. Chapter 4 presents one survey (N = 189) and one experiment (N = 290) that show how government policy on foreign aid affects private giving by changing perceptions of national giving norms. Chapter 5 presents two experiments (combined N = 440) that demonstrate how political advocacy can affect charitable giving by changing donor emotions, perceptions of efficacy, and identification with beneficiaries. Chapter 6 highlights the importance of also considering fundraisers when studying charitable giving. Mediation analyses from two samples of peer-to-peer fundraisers (combined N = 1,647) show that when fundraisers identify more with their nominated charity they take more actions to raise money and that, in turn, results in more funds raised. In particular, results show that actions which make the fundraiser more salient (e.g., adding photos, sharing personal motivations) are most effective. Chapter 7 draws together evidence from my program of research and more than 300 articles from the interdisciplinary literature to generate a new mode...

show abstract

“…The impact of social norms can be reinforced through social control and social comparisons (e.g. Bartke, Friedl, Gelhaar, & Reh, 2017), including role models (Bandura & Walters, 1969). Striving for conformity with external social expectations, and consistency with internalised norms, can limit people's self-interest (bounded selfinterest; e.g.…”

Section: Problem Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can personality traits explain compliance behaviour? - A study of compliance with water-protection rules in German agriculture

Funke¹,

Hirschauer²,

Peth³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Going beyond the rational choice approach used in conventional economics of crime, the question arises whether psychological personality traits analysis can contribute to a better understanding of non-compliance and, eventually, to the prevention of illicit behaviours. This study investigated how personality traits are related to compliance with environmental regulation in agriculture. The object of study was a water-protection rule that required farmers using fertilising to keep it a minimum distance away from nearby water bodies. Self-interested infringements can cause serious environmental damage to waters (negative externalities) through nitrogen runoff. In a survey among German farmers, we employed a 10-item version of the Big Five Inventory to measure the traits that are used as predictor variables in a regression analysis. The outcome variable was the farmers’ compliance behaviour in a business management game where rule-breaking was more profitable than rule-abidance. Some noteworthy findings were observed in the surveyed sample. (i) Neuroticism was positively related to ‘overall compliance’, measured as a binary yes/no variable; that is, more anxious farmers were less prone to rule-breaking. Surprisingly, however, a positive relationship between neuroticism and compliance was not found when looking separately at the deviant subgroup; here, greater neuroticism was associated with more severe rule violations, in terms of illicitly fertilised acreage. (ii) In the deviant subgroup, as might have been expected, higher levels of conscientiousness were associated with less severe rule-violations. Contrary to expectations, again, higher levels of agreeableness were linked to more severe non-compliance. A substantial positive relationship was found between extraversion and the severity of non-compliance, in accordance with ex-ante expectation. For openness to experience, no noteworthy results were obtained. The results indicate that agents with heterogeneous personality traits might react differently to identical economic and institutional environments. Moreover, it is suggested that, other than traits, there is another quality in agents (e.g. social control) that may have a decisive influence on their belonging to the compliant or non-compliant subpopulation. Farmers’ responses to changes brought forward by regulators who aim to prevent rule-breaking might therefore differ as well.

show abstract

Social comparison nudges—Guessing the norm increases charitable giving

Cited by 45 publications

References 24 publications

You’ve Got Mail: A Randomized Field Experiment on Tax Evasion

You’ve Got Mail: A Randomized Field Experiment on Tax Evasion

Toward a triadic understanding of charitable giving: how donors, beneficiaries, fundraisers, and social contexts influence donation decisions

Can personality traits explain compliance behaviour? - A study of compliance with water-protection rules in German agriculture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About