This article investigates the decision of consumers at bottle refund machines to either reclaim their bottle deposit or to donate the refund to a non-profit organization. The study documents the unique pre-intervention data on donating behaviour and introduces a field experiment to increase donation levels. The design comprised the strategic framing of the situation by highlighting different cues about the normative, descriptive and local expectations of charitable giving as well as cues about the warm glow of donating money. The experiment took place in 20 supermarkets in Germany and lasted for 12 months. By varying the experimental design and using different modelling approaches, the study arrives at the conclusion that individuals largely act consistent with the assumption having self-regarding preferences that are stable and difficult to change. Hence, our pre-test and post-intervention data stand in sharp contrast to results from lab experiments.
AbadieA (2005) Semi-parametric difference-in-differences estimators. The Review of Economic Studies72(1): 1–19.
2.
AdenaMHuckS (2017) Matching donations without crowding out? Some theoretical considerations a field and a lab experiment. Journal of Public Economics148: 32–42.
3.
AltmannSFalkAHeidhuesPet al. (2014) Defaults and donations: evidence from a field experiment. Working Paper no. 5118, December. Munich: CESifo Group.
4.
AndreoniJ (1989) Giving with impure altruism: applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence. Journal of Political Economy97(6): 1447–1458.
5.
AndreoniJ (1990) Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving. Economic Journal100(401): 464–477.
6.
AndreoniJ (1995) Warm-glow versus cold-prickle: the effects of positive and negative framing on cooperation in experiments. The Quarterly Journal of Economics110(1): 1–21.
7.
AndreoniJ (2006) Philanthropy. In: KolmSCYthierJM (eds) Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 1201–1269.
8.
AndreoniJMillerJ (2002) Giving according to GARP: an experimental test of the consistency of preferences for altruism. Econometrica70(2): 737–753.
9.
AndreoniJRaoJMTrachtmanH (2017) Avoiding the ask: a field experiment on altruism, empathy, and charitable giving. Journal of Political Economy125(3): 625–653.
10.
AngristJDPischkeJS (2008) Mostly Harmless Econometrics : An Empiricists Companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
11.
BalafoutasLNikiforakisN (2012) Norm enforcement in the city: a natural field experiment. European Economic Review56(8): 1773–1785.
12.
BanerjeeAVDufloE (2017) Handbook of Economic Field Experiments, vols. 1 and 2. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
13.
BekkersRWiepkingP (2011) A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly40(5): 924–973.
14.
BergerJHevenstoneD (2016) Norm enforcement in the city revisited: an international field experiment of altruistic punishment norm maintenance and broken windows. Rationality and Society28(3): 299–319.
15.
BicchieriC (2006) The Grammar of Society: The Nature and Dynamics of Social Norms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
CardDKruegerAB (1994) Minimum wages and employment: a case study of the fast-food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The American Economic Review84(4): 772–793.
18.
ChangDChenRKrupkaE (2018) Rhetoric matters: a social norms explanation for the anomaly of framing. WZB Discussion Paper SP II204: 1–52.
19.
CialdiniRB (2007) Descriptive social norms as underappreciated sources of social control. Psychometrika72(2): 263–268.
20.
CialdiniRBDemaineLJSagarinBJet al. (2006) Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Social Influence1(1): 3–15.
21.
CialdiniRBRenoRKallgrenCA (1990) A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public spaces. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology58(6): 1015–1026.
22.
CorcoranKE (2013) Divine exchanges: applying social exchange theory to religious behavior. Rationality and Society25(3): 335–369.
23.
DellaVignaS (2009) Psychology and economics: Evidence from the field. Journal of Economic literature47(2): 315-72.
ElsterJ (1989) Social norms and economic theory. Journal of Economic Perspectives3: 99–117.
26.
EngelC (2011) Dictator games: a meta study. Experimental Economics14(4): 583–610.
27.
FehrECamererCF (2007) Social neuroeconomics: the neural circuitry of social preferences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences11(10): 419–427.
28.
FehrlerSPrzepiorkaW (2013) Charitable giving as a signal of trustworthiness: disentangling the signaling benefits of altruistic acts. Evolution and Human Behavior34(2): 139–145.
29.
FreyBSMeierS (2004) Social comparisons and pro-social behavior: testing conditional cooperation in a field experiment. American Economic Review94(5): 1717–1722.
30.
GoldsteinNJCialdiniRBGriskeviciusV (2008) A room with a viewpoint: using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research35(3): 472–482.
31.
GrossmanZVan Der WeeleJJ (2017) Self-image and willful ignorance in social decisions. Journal of the European Economic Association15(1): 173–217.
32.
HarbaughWTMayrUBurghartDR (2007) Neural responses to taxation and voluntary giving reveal motives for charitable donations. Science316(5831): 1622–1625.
33.
HechterMOppK-D (eds) (2001) Social Norms. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
34.
HuckSRasulI (2011) Matched fundraising: evidence from a natural field experiment. Journal of Public Economics95(5): 351–362.
35.
HuckSRasulIShephardA (2015) Comparing charitable fundraising schemes: evidence from a natural field experiment and a structural model. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy7(2): 326–369.
36.
KarlanDListJA (2007) Does price matter in charitable giving? Evidence from a large-scale natural field experiment. American Economic Review97(5): 1774–1793.
37.
KarlanDListJAShafirE (2011) Small matches and charitable giving: evidence from a natural field experiment. Journal of Public Economics95(5–6): 344–350.
38.
KeizerKLindenbergSStegL (2008) The spreading of disorder. Science322(5908): 1681–1685.
39.
KeuschniggMWolbringT (2015) Disorder social capital and norm violation: three field experiments on the broken windows thesis. Rationality and Society27(1): 96–126.
40.
KimbroughEOVostroknutovA (2016) Norms make preferences social. Journal of the European Economic Association14(3): 608–638.
41.
KnutssonMMartinssonPWollbrantC (2013) Do people avoid opportunities to donate: a natural field experiment on recycling and charitable giving. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization93: 71–77.
42.
KrupkaELWeberRA (2013) Identifying social norms using coordination games: why does dictator game sharing vary?Journal of the European Economic Association11(3): 495–524.
43.
LevittSDListJA (2007) What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world?Journal of Economic Perspectives21(2): 153–174.
44.
LibermanVSamuelsSMRossL (2004) The name of the game: predictive power of reputations versus situational labels in determining prisoners dilemma game moves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin30(9): 1175–1185.
45.
LiebeUTuticA (2010) Status groups and altruistic behaviour in dictator games. Rationality and Society22(3): 353–380.
46.
LiebeUPreisendörferPMeyerhoffJ (2011) To pay or not to pay: competing theories to explain individuals willingness to pay for public environmental goods. Environment and Behavior43(1): 106–130.
47.
LindenbergS (2009) Why framing should be all about the impact of goals on cognitions and evaluations. In: HillPKalterFKoppJet al. (eds) Hartmut Essers Erklärende Soziologie: Kontroversen und Perspektiven. Frankfurt/Main: Campus Verlag, pp. 53–79.
48.
LindenbergSStegL (2007) Normative gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behaviour. Journal of Social Issues63(1): 117–137.
49.
ListJA (2009) Social preferences: some thoughts from the field. Annual Review of Economics1(1): 563–579.
50.
MeierS (2007) Do subsidies increase charitable giving in the long run? Matching donations in a field experiment. Journal of the European Economic Association5(6): 1203–1222.
51.
MollJKruegerFZahnRet al. (2006) Human fronto–mesolimbic networks guide decisions about charitable donation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America103(42): 15623–15628.
52.
NelsonTEClawsonRAOxleyZM (1997) Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review91(3): 567–583.
53.
NeumannRMehlkopG (2018) Pro-environmental behavior and the relationship between attitudes, costs, and situational framing – testing competing theories with data from the GESIS panel. Zeitschrift Für Soziologie47(2): 101–118.
54.
OppKD (1999) Contending conceptions of the theory of rational action. Journal of Theoretical Politics11(2): 171–202.
55.
OstromE (2000) Collective action and the evolution of social norms. Journal of Economic Perspectives14(3): 137–158.
56.
PalfreyTRPrisbreyJE (1997) Anomalous behavior in public goods experiments: how much and why?The American Economic Review87: 829–846.
57.
PrzepiorkaWBergerJ (2016) The sanctioning dilemma: a quasi-experiment on social norm enforcement in the train. European Sociological Review32(3): 439–451.
58.
SargeantAWoodliffeL (2005) The antecedents of donor commitment to voluntary organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership16(1): 61–78.
59.
SchulzJFThiemannPThöniC (2016) Nudging generosity: choice architecture and cognitive factors in charitable giving. IZA Discussion Paper no. 11097, October. Bonn: IZA-Institute of Labor Economics.
60.
ShadishWRCookTDCampbellDD (2002) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
61.
ShangJCrosonR (2009) A field experiment in charitable contribution: the impact of social information on the voluntary provision of public goods. The Economic Journal119: 1422–1439.
62.
ThalerRHSunsteinCR (2008) Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health Wealth and Happiness. New Haven, CT; London: Yale University Press.
63.
TverskyAKahnemanD (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science211(4481): 453–458.
64.
VanbergVJ (2008) On the economics of moral preferences. American Journal of Economics and Sociology67(4): 605–628.
65.
WooldridgeJM (2015) Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. Toronto, ON, Canada: Nelson Education.
66.
WunderinkSR (2000) The economics of consumers gifts and legacies to charitable organisations. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing5(3): 268–287.
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.
