Hostname: page-component-669899f699-8p65j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-01T20:15:38.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do watching eyes affect charitable giving? Evidence from a field experiment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Mathias Ekström
Mathias Ekström*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Stockholm University, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The presence of implicit observation cues, such as picture of eyes, has been shown to increase generosity in dictator games, and cooperative behavior in field settings. I combine these approaches, by testing if a picture of watching eyes affects unconditional giving in a natural environment, where the recipient is a charity organization. Taken together, this study reduces the influence of three potential confounding factors in previous experiments: (i) experimenter demand effects, (ii) that the facial cue reminds subjects of a human counterpart, and (iii) a social multiplier effect. Specifically, the paper reports results from an experiment, conducted in a Swedish supermarket chain, where customers face a naturally occurring decision problem. People who recycle cans and bottles have to choose whether to keep the recycled amount or donate it to a charity organization. By posting a picture of human eyes on recycling machines, I am able to test whether this causes an increase in donations to the charity. Based on a sample covering a 12-day period, 38 stores and 16775 individual choices, I find no general effect. However, when controlling for store and day fixed effects, and using a proxy for store attendance, the picture of eyes increased donated amount by 30 percent during days when relatively few other people visited the store. This result gives further support to the conclusion that subtle social cues can invoke reputation concerns in humans, although the relatively small effect suggests that previous estimates could be biased upward, or at least that the influence of observational cues is context dependent.

Keywords

AltruismCuesReputationField Experiment

JEL classification

A13: Relation of Economics to Social Values D64: Altruism • Philanthropy • Intergenerational Transfers C93: Field Experiments
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 530 - 546
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alpizar, F., Carlsson, F., & Johansson-Stenman, O. (2008). Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: Evidence from voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 1047–1060. 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.11.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, M. W., Carrell, S. E., & Lopez, D. F. (1990). Priming relationship schemas: My advisor and the pope are watching me from the back of my mind. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 435–454. 10.1016/0022-1031(90)90068-WCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandiera, O., Barankay, I., & Rasul, I. (2005). Social preferences and the response to incentives: Evidence from personnel data. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120, 917–962.Google Scholar
Bardsley, N. (2008). Dictator game giving: altruism or artefact?. Experimental Economics, 11, 122–133. 10.1007/s10683-007-9172-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateson, M., Nettle, D., & Roberts, B. (2006). Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world setting. Biology Letters, 2, 412–414. 10.1098/rsbl.2006.0509CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bateson, M., Ernest-Jones, M., & Nettle, D. (2011). Effects of eye images on everyday cooperative behavior: a field experiment. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(3), 172–178. 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.10.006Google Scholar
Bertrand, M., Duflo, E., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates?. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119, 249–275. 10.1162/003355304772839588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, T. C. (2003). Engineering altruism: a theoretical and experimental investigation of anonymity and gift giving. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 50, 133–144. 10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00044-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. F., & Fehr, E. (2006). When does “economic man” dominate social behavior?. Science, 311, 47–52. 10.1126/science.1110600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, D., Kagel, J. H. Kagel, J. H., & Roth, A. (2010). Other-regarding preferences: a selective survey of experimental results. Handbook of experimental economics, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
DellaVigna, S., & List, J. A. Malmendier, U. (2010). Testing for altruism and social pressure in charitable giving (Unpublished Working Paper). http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~sdellavi/wp/charsocpress10-01-28.pdf.Google Scholar
Dreber, A., Ellingsen, T., & Johannesson, M. Rand, D. G. (2011). Do people care about social context? Framing effects in dictator games (Unpublished Manuscript).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellingsen, T., Johannesson, M., & Mollerstrom, J. Munkhammar, S. (2011). Social framing effects: Preferences or beliefs? (Unpublished Working Paper).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–868. 10.1162/003355399556151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E., & Schneider, F. (2010). Eyes are on us, but nobody cares: are eye cues relevant for strong reciprocity?. Proceedings of the Royal Society. Series B: Biological Sciences, 277, 1315–1323. 10.1098/rspb.2009.1900Google ScholarPubMed
Gaechter, S., Orzen, H., Renner, E., & Starmer, C. (2009). Are experimental economists prone to framing effects? A natural field experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 70(3), 443–446. 10.1016/j.jebo.2007.11.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gintis, H., Bowles, S., Boyd, R., & Fehr, E. (2003). Explaining altruistic behavior in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 153–172. 10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00157-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haley, K. J., & Fessler, D. M. T. (2005). Nobody’s watching? Subtle cues affect generosity in an anonymous economic game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 245–256. 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.01.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamba, S., & Mace, R. (2010). People recognise when they are really anonymous in an economic game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 271–278. 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.02.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world?. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21, 153–174. 10.1257/jep.21.2.153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, J. A. (2007). On the interpretation of giving in dictator games. Journal of Political Economy, 115, 482–493. 10.1086/519249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundin, K., & Raaschou, E. (2007). Kartlaggning av atervinningen av aluminiumburkar och pet-flaskor (Survey by SIFO Research International).Google Scholar
Martin, R., & Randal, J. (2008). How is donation behaviour affected by the donations of others?. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 67, 228–238. 10.1016/j.jebo.2007.08.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mas, A., & Moretti, E. (2009). Peers at work. American Economic Review, 99, 112–145. 10.1257/aer.99.1.112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oda, R., Niwa, Y., Honma, A., & Hiraishi, K. (2011). An eye-like painting enhances the expectation of a good reputation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(3), 166–171. 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.11.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rigdon, M., Ishii, K., Watabe, M., & Kitayama, S. (2009). Minimal social cues in the dictator game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30, 358–367. 10.1016/j.joep.2009.02.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of weil-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Monograph Supplement, 45(3), 513–523. 10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soetevent, A. R. (2005). Anonymity in giving in a natural context—a field experiment in 30 churches. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 2301–2323. 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.11.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458. 10.1126/science.7455683CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed