IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/feb/framed/00437.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Field Experiment on Using Messaging and Virtual Rewards to Increase User Participation on NanoHUB.org

Author

Listed:
  • Gerhard Klimeck
  • Anya Samek

Abstract

We conducted an experiment with 30,000 users of a virtual nanotechnology facility, nanoHUB.org. We investigate the effect of virtual points and message framing on user participation in a survey. In one treatment, users receive points for completing the survey. In another treatment, users are exposed to a visual observation cue. We vary the social message, either emphasizing the private benefit to the user or the social benefit to the community of participation. Participation rates are increased through virtual points and for users receiving the private benefit messaging. The observation cue doesn't have an effect.

Suggested Citation

  • Gerhard Klimeck & Anya Samek, 2013. "A Field Experiment on Using Messaging and Virtual Rewards to Increase User Participation on NanoHUB.org," Framed Field Experiments 00437, The Field Experiments Website.
    • Handle: RePEc:feb:framed:00437
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://s3.amazonaws.com/fieldexperiments-papers2/papers/00437.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bruno S. Frey & Reto Jegen, 2001. "Motivation Crowding Theory," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(5), pages 589-611, December.
    2. repec:feb:natura:0059 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Rigdon, Mary & Ishii, Keiko & Watabe, Motoki & Kitayama, Shinobu, 2009. "Minimal social cues in the dictator game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 358-367, June.
    4. Melissa Bateson & Daniel Nettle & Gilbert Roberts, 2006. "Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world setting," Natural Field Experiments 00214, The Field Experiments Website.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel Nettle & Kenneth Nott & Melissa Bateson, 2012. "‘Cycle Thieves, We Are Watching You’: Impact of a Simple Signage Intervention against Bicycle Theft," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-5, December.
    2. Francesca Gino & Erin L. Krupka & Roberto A. Weber, 2013. "License to Cheat: Voluntary Regulation and Ethical Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(10), pages 2187-2203, October.
    3. Magnus Bergquist & Andreas Nilsson & Emma Ejelöv, 2019. "Contest-Based and Norm-Based Interventions: (How) Do They Differ in Attitudes, Norms, and Behaviors?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, January.
    4. Gosnell, Greer K., 2018. "Communicating Resourcefully: A Natural Field Experiment on Environmental Framing and Cognitive Dissonance in Going Paperless," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 128-144.
    5. Yuki Miyazaki, 2013. "Increasing Visual Search Accuracy by Being Watched," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-8, January.
    6. Diane Reyniers & Richa Bhalla, 2013. "Reluctant altruism and peer pressure in charitable giving," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(1), pages 7-15, January.
    7. Zhen-wei Huang & Li Liu & Wen-wen Zheng & Xu-yun Tan & Xian Zhao, 2015. "Walking the Straight and Narrow: The Moderating Effect of Evaluation Apprehension on the Relationship between Collectivism and Corruption," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-12, March.
    8. Sääksvuori, Lauri & Ramalingam, Abhijit, 2015. "Bargaining under surveillance: Evidence from a three-person ultimatum game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 66-78.
    9. Nicolas Jacquemet & Stéphane Luchini & Julie Rosaz & Jason F. Shogren, 2019. "Truth Telling Under Oath," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(1), pages 426-438, January.
    10. Loren Pauwels & Carolyn H. Declerck & Christophe Boone, 2017. "Watching Eyes and Living up to Expectations: Unkind, Not Kind, Eyes Increase First Mover Cooperation in a Sequential Prisoner’s Dilemma," Games, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-13, April.
    11. Damien Francey & Ralph Bergmüller, 2012. "Images of Eyes Enhance Investments in a Real-Life Public Good," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-7, May.
    12. Jan Krátký & John J McGraw & Dimitris Xygalatas & Panagiotis Mitkidis & Paul Reddish, 2016. "It Depends Who Is Watching You: 3-D Agent Cues Increase Fairness," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-11, February.
    13. Fenzl, Thomas & Brudermann, Thomas, 2021. "Eye cues increase cooperation in the dictator game under physical attendance of a recipient, but not for all," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    14. Reyniers, Diane & Bhalla, Richa, 2013. "Reluctant altruism and peer pressure in charitable giving," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 48779, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Krupka, Erin L. & Croson, Rachel T.A., 2016. "The differential impact of social norms cues on charitable contributions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 149-158.
    16. Melissa Bateson & Luke Callow & Jessica R Holmes & Maximilian L Redmond Roche & Daniel Nettle, 2013. "Do Images of ‘Watching Eyes’ Induce Behaviour That Is More Pro-Social or More Normative? A Field Experiment on Littering," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-1, December.
    17. Mathias Ekström, 2012. "Do watching eyes affect charitable giving? Evidence from a field experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(3), pages 530-546, September.
    18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:6:p:589-600 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Gosnell, Greer, 2018. "Communicating resourcefully: a natural field experiment on environmental framing and cognitive dissonance in going paperless," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 89815, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    20. Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Joo Young Jeon & Bibhas Saha, 2014. "Eye-image in Experiments: Social Cue or Experimenter Demand Effect?," University of East Anglia Applied and Financial Economics Working Paper Series 067, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    21. Valerio Capraro & Francesca Giardini & Daniele Vilone & Mario Paolucci, 2016. "Partner selection supported by opaque reputation promotes cooperative behavior," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(6), pages 589-600, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:feb:framed:00437. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: David Franks (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.fieldexperiments.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.