Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Charities often use incentives to increase prosocial action. However, charities sometimes downplay these incentives in their messaging (pilot study), possibly to avoid demotivating donors. We challenge this strategy, examining whether increasing the salience of incentives for prosocial action can in fact motivate charitable behavior. Three controlled experiments (N = 2,203 adults) and a field study with an alumni-donation campaign (N = 22,468 adults) found that more (vs. less) salient incentives are more effective at increasing prosocial behavior when prosocial motivation is low (vs. high). This is because more (vs. less) salient incentives increase relative consideration of self-interest (vs. other-regarding) benefits, which is a stronger driver of behavior at low (vs. high) levels of prosocial motivation. By identifying that prosocial motivation moderates the effect of incentive salience on charitable behavior, and by detailing the underlying mechanism, we advance theory and practice on incentive salience, motivation, and charitable giving.

Keywords

extrinsic incentives prosocial behavior charitable giving motivation salience open data open materials preregistered

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Red Cross. (2022). The Matrix Resurrections + Red Cross. https://www.redcrossblood.org/local-homepage/events/matrix-promotion

Barasch

Berman

J. Z.

Small

D. A.

(2016). When payment undermines the pitch: On the persuasiveness of pure motives in fund-raising. Psychological Science, 27(10), 1388–1397.

Bénabou

Tirole

(2006). Incentives and prosocial behavior. American Economic Review, 96, 1652–1678.

Borgida

Howard-Pitney

(1983). Personal involvement and the robustness of perceptual salience effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 560–570.

Chao

(2017). Demotivating incentives and motivation crowding out in charitable giving. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 114(28), 7301–7306.

Chao

Fisher

(2022). Self-interested giving: The relationship between conditional gifts, charitable donations, and donor self-interestedness. Management Science, 68(6), 4537–4567.

Cialdini

R. B.

Goldstein

N. J.

(2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621.

Costello

J. P.

Malkoc

S. A.

(2022). Why are donors more generous with time than money? The role of perceived control over donations on charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 49(4), 678–696.

DellaVigna

Pope

(2018). What motivates effort? Evidence and expert forecasts. The Review of Economic Studies, 85(2), 1029–1069.

10.

Exley

(2018). Incentives for prosocial behavior: The role of reputations. Management Science, 64(5), 2460–2471.

11.

Falk

(2007). Gift exchange in the field. Econometrica, 75(5), 1501–1511.

12.

Forbes. (2021). The 100 largest U.S. charities. https://www.forbes.com/top-charities/list

13.

Gneezy

Meier

Rey-Biel

(2011). When and why incentives (don’t) work to modify behavior. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(4), 191–210.

14.

Gneezy

Rustichini

(2000). Pay enough or don’t pay at all. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 791–810.

15.

Goette

Stutzer

(2020). Blood donations and incentives: Evidence from a field experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 170, 52–74.

16.

Grant

A. M.

(2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 48–58.

17.

Heath

(1999). On the social psychology of agency relationships: Lay theories of motivation overemphasize extrinsic incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78(1), 25–62.

18.

Heyman

Ariely

(2004). Effort for payment: A tale of two markets. Psychological Science, 15(11), 787–793.

19.

Itti

Koch

(2001). Computational modelling of visual attention. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(3), 194–203.

20.

Jarvenpaa

S. L.

(1990). Graphic displays in decision making—the visual salience effect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 3(4), 247–262.

21.

Koo

Dai

Mai

K. M.

Song

C. E.

(2020). Anticipated temporal landmarks undermine motivation for continued goal pursuit. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 161, 142–157.

22.

Krajbich

Rangel

(2011). Multialternative drift-diffusion model predicts the relationship between visual fixations and choice in value-based decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 108(33), 13852–13857.

23.

Landry

C. E.

Lange

List

J. A.

Price

M. K.

Rupp

N. G.

(2010). Is a donor in hand better than two in the bush? Evidence from a natural field experiment. American Economic Review, 100(3), 958–983.

24.

Lee

Deng

Unnava

H. R.

Fujita

(2014). Monochrome forests and colorful trees: The effect of black-and-white versus color imagery on construal level. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(4), 1015–1032.

25.

Marquardt

D. W.

(1980). Comment: You should standardize the predictor variables in your regression models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75(369), 87–91.

26.

Mellström

Johannesson

(2008). Crowding out in blood donation: Was Titmuss right? Journal of the European Economic Association, 6(4), 845–863.

27.

Miniard

P. W.

Bhatla

Lord

K. R.

Dickson

P. R.

Unnava

H. R.

(1991). Picture-based persuasion processes and the moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1), 92–107.

28.

Newman

G. E.

Shen

Y. J.

(2012). The counterintuitive effects of thank-you gifts on charitable giving. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(5), 973–983.

29.

Pennycook

Fugelsang

J. A.

Koehler

D. J.

(2015). What makes us think? A three-stage dual-process model of analytic engagement. Cognitive Psychology, 80, 34–72.

30.

Sharif

M. A.

Woolley

(2020). The effect of categorization on goal progress perceptions and motivation. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(4), 608–630.

31.

Sirota

Juanchich

Holford

D. L.

(2023). Rationally irrational: When people do not correct their reasoning errors even if they could. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(7), 2052–2073.

32.

Small

D. A.

Loewenstein

Slovic

(2007). Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(2), 143–153.

33.

Theeuwes

(2018). Visual selection: Usually fast and automatic; seldom slow and volitional. Journal of Cognition, 1(1), 1–15.

34.

Van Doesum

N. J.

Murphy

R. O.

Gallucci

Aharonov-Majar

Athenstaedt

W. T.

Bai

Böhm

Bovina

Buchan

N. R.

Chen

X.-P.

Dumont

K. B.

Engelmann

J. B.

Eriksson

Euh

Fiedler

Friesen

Gächter

Garcia

Van Lange

P. A

. (2021). Social mindfulness and prosociality vary across the globe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 118(35), Article e2023846118.

35.

Walco

D. K.

Risen

J. L.

(2017). The empirical case for acquiescing to intuition. Psychological Science, 28(12), 1807–1820.

36.

Wang

Zhang

Jia

(2019). Separate neural systems value prosocial behaviors and reward: An ALE meta-analysis. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 13, Article 276. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00276

37.

Wollbrant

Knutsson

Martinsson

(2022). Extrinsic rewards and crowding-out of prosocial behaviour. Nature Human Behaviour, 6, 774–781.

38.

Woolley

Fishbach

(2015). The experience matters more than you think: People value intrinsic incentives more inside than outside an activity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 968–982.

39.

Wounded Warrior Project. (2022). Donate now. https://support.woundedwarriorproject.org

40.

Yin

Y. J.

Singh

(2020). Coins are cold and cards are caring: The effect of pregiving incentives on charity perceptions, relationship norms, and donation behavior. Journal of Marketing, 84(6), 57–73.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

6.51 MB