Working for the “warm glow”: On the benefits and limits of prosocial incentives

Imas, Alex

doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2013.11.006

Cited by 210 publications

(121 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Alternatively, behavior might be best captured by the impurely altruistic account. Impure altruism suggests that people feel a "warm glow" when engaging in prosocial behavior (Andreoni 1990), but that the glow that comes with a little bit of prosocial behavior is almost as bright as that that comes with much more (Frederick and Fischhoff 1998, Hsee and Rottenstreich 2004, Imas 2014, Small et al 2007). An impurely altruistic customer would be sensitive to the presence of a charitable stimulus but largely insensitive to the scope of that charitable contribution.…”

Section: Behavior Under Consumer Elective Pricingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Signaling Virtue: Charitable Behavior Under Consumer Elective Pricing

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two field experiments examined generosity under consumer elective pricing. In shared social responsibility (SSR), consumers choose how much to pay, knowing that a percentage of their payment goes to support a charitable cause. Replicating past research, consumers in our experiments were sensitive to the presence of charitable giving, paying more when a portion of their payment went to charity. Notably, however, they were largely insensitive to the percentage of payment allocated to charity-customers paid little more when 99% of the payment went to charity than when only 1% went to charity. Neither self-selection nor social pressure fully explained higher payments under SSR.History: Preyas Desai served as the editor-in-chief and Duncan Simester served as associate editor for this article.

show abstract

Section: Behavior Under Consumer Elective Pricingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Signaling Virtue: Charitable Behavior Under Consumer Elective Pricing

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Importantly, utility derived from giving prosocial benefits seems to be fairly insensitive to the financial benefit amount actually provided (Hsee and Rottenstreich 2004;Imas 2014;Small, Loewenstein, and Slovic 2007), suggesting that consumers pay relatively little attention to evaluating the amount of the financial benefit. In fact, prosocial benefits may be evaluated according to low reference points.…”

Section: How Can Firms Create Felt Appreciation With Small Financial mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We theorize that the trivialization effect may be eliminated when a prosocial benefit is offered both because the utility provided by giving a prosocial benefit is fairly insensitive to the quantity of benefit actually provided (Hsee and Rottenstreich 2004;Imas 2014;Small, Loewenstein, and Slovic 2007) or because a prosocial benefit is more likely to be evaluated according to low financial reference points (Cialdini and Schroeder 1976;Estrin 2013 These and other possibilities can be examined through the lens introduced herein.…”

Section: Theoretical Contributions and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Should Firms Use Small Financial Benefits to Express Appreciation to Consumers? Understanding and Avoiding Trivialization Effects

Liu

Lamberton

Haws

2015

Journal of Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…suggest that performance will rise under a pro-social task: subjects may transfer more (Eckel & Grossman, 1996) or may increase productivity in a real effort task (Imas, 2014;Tonin & Vlassopoulos, forthcoming) when the recipient of transfers or revenues is a charity. In our charity conditions, all subjects acted as agents, and all revenues created by the agents were donated: For every correct form, 0.30 Euros was transferred to the charity ''Médecins sans Frontières'' (''Ärzte ohne Grenzen e.V.''…”

Section: Experiments Design and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%