This study presents two experiments investigating how frames and incentives – both monetary and non-monetary – affect prosocial behavior. In Experiment 1, the decision consisted of a one-shot dictator game and two factors were manipulated in a 2x3 factorial design: normative frame (present/absent) and incentives (none/monetary/nonmonetary). In Experiment 2, we manipulated the same two factors in a more realistic scenario, consisting of a real effort task, and measured prosocial behavior in terms of donations of both time invested in the task and material resources. Results suggest that the effects of frames and incentives depend on the context. The exposure to a normative frame increases prosocial behavior in Experiment 1, while in Experiment 2 the presence of a normative frame increases donations of time but not of material resources. By contrast, in both experiments, participants’ material donations were higher when non-monetary incentives were given, but we found no differences in donations of time between types of incentives in experiment 2.
BarreraD (2014) Mechanisms of cooperation. In: ManzoG (ed) Analytical Sociology, Actions and Networks. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc. (Wiley Series in Computational and Quantitative Social Science), 172–195.
2.
BarreraDGërxhaniKKittelB, et al. (2024) Experimental Sociology. Outline of a Scientific Field. Cambridge University Press.
3.
BartlingBÖzdemirY (2023) The limits to moral erosion in markets: social norms and the replacement excuse. Games and Economic Behavior138: 143–160.
4.
Ben-NerAKramerALevyO (2008) Economic and hypothetical dictator Game experiments: incentive effects at the individual level. The Journal of Socio-Economics37(5): 1775–1784.
5.
BerghAWichardtPC (2022) Mine or ours? Unintended framing effects in dictator games. Rationality and Society34(1): 78–95.
6.
BetschTHaberstrohS (2001) Financial incentives do not pave the road to good experimentation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences24(3): 404.
7.
BoltonGEOckenfelsA (2000) ERC: a theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. The American Economic Review90(1): 166–193.
8.
BowlesS (2016) The Moral Economy: Why Good Incentives Are No Substitute for Good Citizens. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press.
9.
BraseGL (2009) How different types of participant Payments alter task performance. Judgment and Decision Making4(5): 419–428.
10.
BrownALMeerJWilliamsJF (2019) Why do people volunteer? An experimental analysis of preferences for time donations. Management Science65(4): 1455–1468.
11.
BührenCKundtTC (2015) Imagine being a nice guy: a note on hypothetical vs. incentivized social preferences. Judgment and Decision making10(2): 185–190.
12.
BuskensVRaubW (2013) Rational choice research on social dilemmas: embeddedness effects on trust. In: WittekRSnijdersTABNeeV (eds) The Handbook of Rational Choice Social Research. Stanford University Press, 113–150.
13.
CamererCFHogarthRM (1999) The effects of financial incentives in experiments: a review and capital-labor-production framework. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty19(1): 7–42.
CarpenterJHuet-VaughnE (2019) Real-effort tasks. In: SchramAUleA (eds) Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Experimental Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., 368–383.
16.
CoveyJ (2014) The role of dispositional factors in moderating message framing effects. Health Psychology33(1): 52–65.
17.
DeVoeSEIyengarSS (2010) Medium of exchange matters: what’s fair for goods is unfair for money. Psychological Science21(2): 159–162.
18.
EllingsenTJohannessonM (2009) Time is not money. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization72(1): 96–102.
19.
EngelC (2011) Dictator games: a meta study. Experimental Economics14(4): 583–610.
20.
EsserH (2009) Rationality and commitment: the model of frame selection and the explanation of normative action. In: CherkaouiMHamiltonP (eds) Raymond Boudon: A Life in Sociology, Vol. 2, Part Two: Toward a General Theory of Rationality. Oxford: The Bardwell Press, 27–30.
21.
FantinoEGaitanSKennellyA, et al. (2007) How reinforcer type affects choice in economic Games. Behavioural Processes75(2): 107–114.
22.
FehrEGächterS (2002) Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature415(6868): 137–140. DOI: 10.1038/415137a.
23.
FehrESchmidtKM (1999) A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics114(3): 817–868.
24.
GallagherKMUpdegraffJA (2012) Health message framing effects on attitudes, intentions, and behavior: a meta-analytic review. Annals of behavioral medicine43(1): 101–116.
25.
GneezyURustichiniA (2000) Pay Enough or Don’t pay at all. Quarterly Journal of Economics115(2): 791–810.
26.
GoffmanE (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
27.
GrossmanPJZhanWEckelCC (2020) Does How We Measure Altruism Matter? Playing Both Roles in Dictator Games. Monash University.
28.
GumpertPDeutschMEpsteinY (1969) Effect of incentive magnitude on cooperation in the Prisoner's Dilemma game. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology11(1): 66–69.
29.
HarrellA (2012) Do religious cognitions promote prosociality?Rationality and Society24(4): 463–482.
30.
HarrellA (2021) How can I help you? Multiple resource availability promotes generosity with low-value (but not high-value) resources. Rationality and Society33(3): 341–362.
31.
HertwigROrtmannA (2001) Experimental Practices in economics: a methodological challenge for psychologists?Behavioral and Brain Sciences24(3): 383–403.
32.
HeymanJArielyD (2004) Effort for payment: a Tale of two markets. Psychological Science15(11): 787–793.
33.
HiltonDJ (2001) Is the challenge for psychologists to return to behaviourism?Behavioral and Brain Sciences24(3): 415–416.
34.
HofstedeGHofstedeGJMinkovM (2005) Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (vol 2). New York: McGraw-Hill.
35.
HolmasTHKjerstadELurasH, et al. (2010) Does monetary punishment Crowd out pro-social motivation? A natural experiment on hospital length of stay. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization75(2): 261–267.
36.
KahnemanDTverskyA (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica47(2): 263–291.
37.
KahnemanDTverskyA (1984) Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist39(4): 341–350.
38.
KayACWheelerSCBarghJA, et al. (2004) Material priming: the influence of mundane physical objectson situational construal and competitive behavioral choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes95(1): 83–96.
39.
KomaiMGrossmanP (2006) Incentivizing experiments: monetary rewards versus extra credits. Economics Faculty Working Papers5(1): 9.
40.
KronebergC (2005) Die Definition der Situation und die variable Rationalität der Akteure / The definition of the situation and the variable rationality of actors: Ein allgemeines Modell des Handelns / A general model of action. Zeitschrift für Soziologie34(5): 344–363.
41.
KronebergC (2014) Frames, scripts, and variable rationality: an integrative theory of action. In G. Manzo Analytical Sociology: Actions and Networks. John Wiley & Sons, 95–123.
42.
KühbergerA (2001) Why use real and hypothetical payoffs?Behavioral and Brain Sciences24(3): 419–420.
43.
KühbergerASchulte-MecklenbeckMPernerJ (2002) Framing decisions: hypothetical and real. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes89(2): 1162–1175.
44.
LarneyARotellaABarclayP (2019) Stake size effects in ultimatum game and dictator game offers: a meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes151: 61–72.
45.
LazearE (2000) Performance pay and productivity. The American Economic Review90(5): 1346–1361. DOI: 10.1257/aer.90.5.1346.
46.
LepperMRSagotskyGDafoeJL, et al. (1982) Consequences of superfluous social constraints: effects on young children's social inferences and subsequent intrinsic interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology42(1): 51–65.
47.
LibermanVSamuelsSMRossL (2004) The name of the game: Predictive power of reputations versus situational labels in determining prisoner’s dilemma game moves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin30(9): 1175–1185.
48.
LinardiSMcConnellMA (2011) No excuses for good behavior: Volunteering and the social environment. Journal of Public Economics95(5-6): 445–454.
49.
LindenbergS (2006). Prosocial behavior, Solidarity, and framing processes. In FetchenhauerDFlacheABuunk eAPBLindenbergSM. In Solidarity and Prosocial Behavior: An Integration of Sociological and Psychological Perspectives. (pp. 23-44). New York: Springer.
50.
LindenbergS (2008) Social rationality, semi-modularity and goal-framing: what is it all about?Analyse & Kritik30(2): 669–687.
51.
LoceyMLJonesBARachlinH (2011) Real and hypothetical rewards. Judgment and Decision making6(6): 552–564.
52.
LuccasenRAIIIThomasMK (2014) Monetary incentives versus Class credit: evidence from a large classroom trust experiment. Economics Letters123(2): 232–235.
53.
ManzoG (2013) Is rational choice theory still a rational choice of theory? A response to Opp. Social Science Information52(3): 361–382. DOI: 10.1177/0539018413488477.
54.
MessickDMMcClintockCG (1968) Motivational bases of choice in experimental games. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology4(1): 1–25.
55.
MifuneNHashimotoHYamagishiT (2010) Altruism toward in-group members as a reputation mechanism. Evolution and Human Behavior31(2): 109–117.
56.
MooreC (2015) Moral disengagement. Current Opinion in Psychology6: 199–204.
57.
NamYParkHGKimYH (2021) Do you favor positive information or dislike negative information? Cultural variations in the derivation of the framing effect. Current Psychology41: 7911–7917.
58.
NeumannR (2019) The framing of charitable giving: a field experiment at bottle refund machines in Germany. Rationality and Society31(1): 98–126.
59.
OppK-D (2013) What is analytical sociology? Strengths and weaknesses of a new sociological research program. Social Science Information52(3): 329–360.
60.
OskampSKleinkeC (1970) Amount of reward as a variable in the Prisoner's Dilemma game. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology16(1): 133–140.
61.
PittarelloASchmidtTSegelA, et al. (2023) Prior behavior and wording of norm nudge requests shape compliance and reciprocity. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making36: e2327.
62.
ReadD (2005) Monetary incentives, what are they good for?Journal of Economic Methodology12(2): 265–276.
63.
RompfSA (2014) Trust and Rationality: An Integrative Framework for Trust Research. Springer.
64.
Ropret HomarAKnežević CvelbarL (2021) The effects of framing on environmental decisions: a systematic literature review. Ecological Economics183: 106950.
65.
SallyD (1995) Conversation and cooperation in social dilemmas: a meta-analysis of experiments from 1958 to 1992. Rationality and society7(1): 58–92.
66.
SimpsonBWillerR (2015) Beyond altruism: sociological foundations of cooperation and prosocial behavior. Annual Review of Sociology41: 43–63.
67.
SmithVLWalkerJM (1993) Monetary rewards and decision cost in experimental economics. Economic Inquiry31(2): 245–261.
68.
ThomasWIThomasDS (1928). The Child in America: Behavior Problems and Programs. Michigan: Johnson Reprint.
69.
WangXKrumhuberEGGratchJ (2018) The interpersonal effects of emotions in money versus candy games. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology79: 315–327.
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.
