Zoos provide an opportunity for individuals to connect with nature. When individuals feel connected to nature, they are more likely to have positive attitudes toward the environment and to donate to pro-environmental causes. The purpose of the current study was to test the effectiveness of employing a “Pay-What-You-Want” (PWYW) pricing model in a not-for-profit zoo environment. We were interested in financial and nonfinancial outcomes of asking participants to determine their own price. Although the trial resulted in a decrease in per-person payments, there was a positive relationship between payment amount and customer satisfaction and attitude toward the zoo, and a negative relationship between the payment amount and group size. We also found some evidence that engaging in PWYW encouraged central route information processing (as per the elaboration likelihood model theory of persuasion). However, additional research is required to further understand effect of PWYW on elaboration and attitude.
ArendtFlorianMatthesJörg. 2016. “Nature Documentaries, Connectedness to Nature, and Pro-Environmental Behavior.” Environmental Communication10(4):453–72. doi:10.1080/17524032.2014.993415.
4.
Armstrong SouleCatherine A.MadrigalRobert. 2015. “Anchors and Norms in Anonymous Pay-What-You-Want Pricing Contexts.” Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics57:167–75. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2014.10.001.
5.
BruniCoral M.FraserJohnSchultzP. Wesley. 2008. “The Value of Zoo Experiences for Connecting People with Nature.” Visitor Studies11(2):139–50. doi:10.1080/10645570802355489.
6.
CarnevaleAnthony P.RoseStephen J.CheahBan. 2013. The College Payoff: Education, Occupations, Lifetime Earnings. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.
7.
CrosonRachelShangJen (Yue). 2008. “The Impact of Downward Social Information on Contribution Decisions.” Experimental Economics11(3):221–33. doi:10.1007/s10683-007-9191-z.
8.
CrosonRachelShangJen. 2013. “Limits of the Effect of Social Information on the Voluntary Provision of Public Goods: Evidence from Field Experiments.” Economic Inquiry51(1):473–77. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7295.2012.00468.x.
9.
CuiAnnie PengWigginsJennifer. 2017. “What You Ask Changes What I Pay: Framing Effects in Pay What You Want Pricing.” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice25(4):323–39. doi:10.1080/10696679.2017.1345281.
10.
CurtinSusanna. 2009. “Wildlife Tourism: The Intangible, Psychological Benefits of Human–Wildlife Encounters.” Current Issues in Tourism12(5–6):451–74. doi:10.1080/13683500903042857.
11.
EaglyAlice H.ChaikenShelly. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
12.
FosterVivienBatemanIan J.HarleyDavid. 1997. “Real and Hypothetical Willingness to Pay for Environmental Preservation: A Non-Experimental Comparison.” Journal of Agricultural Economics48(1–3):123–37.
13.
GautierPieter A.van der KlaauwBas. 2012. “Selection in a Field Experiment with Voluntary Participation.” Journal of Applied Econometrics27(1):63–84. doi:10.1002/jae.1184.
14.
GerpottTorsten J.SchneiderChristina. 2016. “Buying Behaviors When Similar Products Are Available under Pay-What-You-Want and Posted Price Conditions: Field-Experimental Evidence.” Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics65:135–45. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2016.07.003.
15.
GneezyAyeletGneezyUriNelsonLeif D.BrownAmber. 2010. “Shared Social Responsibility: A Field Experiment in Pay-What-You-Want Pricing and Charitable Giving.” Science329(5989):325–27. doi:10.1126/science.1186744.
16.
GneezyAyeletGneezyUriRienerGerhardNelsonLeif D.2012. “Pay-What-You-Want, Identity, and Self-Signaling in Markets.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America109(19):7236–40. doi:10.1073/pnas.1120893109.
17.
GravertChristina. 2017. “Pride and Patronage—Pay-What-You-Want Pricing at a Charitable Bookstore.” Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics67:1–7. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2017.01.009.
JungMinah H.PerfectoHannahNelsonLeif D.2016. “Anchoring in Payment: Evaluating a Judgmental Heuristic in Field Experimental Settings.” Journal of Marketing Research53(3):354–68. doi:10.1509/jmr.14.0238.
20.
KahnemanDaniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Macmillan.
21.
KempElyriaKennett-HenselPamela A.KeesJeremy. 2013. “Pulling on the Heartstrings: Examining the Effects of Emotions and Gender in Persuasive Appeals.” Journal of Advertising42(1):69–79. doi:10.1080/00913367.2012.749084.
22.
KimJu-YoungNatterMartinSpannMartin. 2009. “Pay What You Want: A New Participative Pricing Mechanism.” Journal of Marketing73(1):44–58. doi:10.1509/jmkg.73.1.044.
23.
KollmussAnjaJulianAgyeman2002. “Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?” Environmental Education Research8(3): 239–260. doi:10.1080/13504620220145401.
24.
KunterMarcus. 2015. “Exploring the Pay-What-You-Want Payment Motivation.” Journal of Business Research68(11):2347–57. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.03.044.
25.
LeavyPatricia. 2014. The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research. Oxford Library of Psychology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
26.
LeónFrancisco J.NogueraJosé A.Tena-SánchezJordi. 2012. “How Much Would You Like to Pay? Trust, Reciprocity and Prosocial Motivations in El Trato.” Social Science Information51(3):389–417. doi:10.1177/0539018412441756.
27.
MaJenniferPenderMateaWelchMeredith. 2016. “Education Pays 2016: The Benefits of Higher Education for Individuals and Society.” Trends in Higher Education Series.” New York: College Board.
28.
MayerF. StephanFrantzCynthia McPherson. 2004. “The Connectedness to Nature Scale: A Measure of Individuals’ Feeling in Community with Nature.” Journal of Environmental Psychology24(4):503–15. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001.
29.
NisbetElizabeth K.ZelenskiJohn M.MurphySteven A.2009. “The Nature Relatedness Scale: Linking Individuals’ Connection with Nature to Environmental Concern and Behavior.” Environment and Behavior41(5):715–40. doi:10.1177/0013916508318748.
30.
ParkSangkonNamSohyunLeeJungmin. 2017. “Charitable Giving, Suggestion, and Learning from Others: Pay-What-You-Want Experiments at a Coffee Shop.” Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics66:16–22. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2016.04.010.
PettyRichard E.BrinolPablo. 2010. “Attitude Change.” Pp. 217–59 in Advanced Social Psychology: The State of the Science, edited by FinkelE. J.BaumeisterR.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
33.
PettyRichard E.CacioppoJohn T.1986. “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology19:123–205. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2.
34.
PrelecDrazenLoewensteinGeorge. 1998. “The Red and the Black: Mental Accounting of Savings and Debt.” Marketing Science17(1):4–28. doi:10.1287/mksc.17.1.4.
35.
ProegerTillBlankenbergAnn-Kathrin. 2017. “Pay-What-You-Want in Groups—Evidence from a Field Experiment.” Applied Economics Letters24(21):1550–57. doi:10.1080/13504851.2017.1324603.
36.
RegnerTobiasBarriaJavier A.2009. “Do Consumers Pay Voluntarily? The Case of Online Music.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization71(2):395–406. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2009.04.001.
37.
RienerGerhardTraxlerChristian. 2012. “Norms, Moods, and Free Lunch: Longitudinal Evidence on Payments from a Pay-What-You-Want Restaurant.” The Journal of Socio-Economics41(4):476–83. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2011.07.003.
38.
RiphahnRegina T.SerflingOliver. 2005. “Item Non-Response on Income and Wealth Questions.” Empirical Economics30(2):521–38.
39.
RunnemarkEmmaHedmanJonasXiaoXiao. 2015. “Do Consumers Pay More Using Debit Cards Than Cash?” Electronic Commerce Research and Applications14(5):285–91.
40.
SchonsLaura MarieReseMarioWiesekeJanRasmussenWiebkeWeberDanielStrotmannWolf-Christian. 2014. “There Is Nothing Permanent Except Change—Analyzing Individual Price Dynamics in “Pay-What-You-Want” Situations.” Marketing Letters25(1):25–36. doi:10.1007/s11002-013-9237-2.
41.
SchröderMarinaLüerAnnemarieSadriehAbdolkarim. 2015. “Pay-What-You-Want or Mark-Off-Your-Own-Price—A Framing Effect in Customer-Selected Pricing.” Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics57:200–4. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2014.10.007.
42.
ShahAvni M.EisenkraftNoahBettmanJames R.ChartrandTanya L.2016. ““Paper or Plastic?” How We Pay Influences Post-Transaction Connection.” Journal of Consumer Research42(5):688–708. doi:10.1093/jcr/ucv056.
43.
SkibinsJeffrey C.PowellRobert. 2013. “Conservation Caring: Measuring the Influence of Zoo Visitors’ Connection to Wildlife on Pro-Conservation Behaviors.” Zoo Biology32(5):528–40. doi:10.1002/zoo.21086.
44.
SomanDilip. 2001. “Effects of Payment Mechanism on Spending Behavior: The Role of Rehearsal and Immediacy of Payments.” Journal of Consumer Research27(4):460–74. doi:10.1086/319621.
TisdellClemWilsonClevo. 2001. “Wildlife-Based Tourism and Increased Support for Nature Conservation Financially and Otherwise: Evidence from Sea Turtle Ecotourism at Mon Repos.” Tourism Economics7(3):233–49.
47.
WebbDeborah J.GreenCorliss L.BrashearThomas G.2000. “Development and Validation of Scales to Measure Attitudes Influencing Monetary Donations to Charitable Organizations.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science28(2):299–309. doi:10.1177/0092070300282010.
48.
WegenerDuane T.BlankenshipKevin L.2007. “Ecological Validity.” Pp. 275–76 in Encyclopedia of Social Psychology, edited by BaumeisterR. F.VohsK. D.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
