IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0185521.html

The influence of anonymous peers on prosocial behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Soowon Park
  • Jongho Shin

Abstract

Background: Peer influence on students’ maladaptive behaviors has been well documented; however, the influence on positive development is less acknowledged. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine anonymous peer influence on college students’ prosocial behavior, specifically behavior for the improvement of society (i.e., donating money or participating in social campaigns) via an experimental approach. The effects of indirect peer influence (IP) and direct peer influence (DP) on college students’ prosocial behavior were examined. Methods: A total of 125 college students participated in an online survey and laboratory experiment. Self-reported helping behavior, social concern goals, and empathy were measured by the online survey. In the laboratory experiments, reading of a prosocial paragraph (IP) and confederates’ prosocial behavior (DP) were manipulated. Participation in a signature campaign and money donation for illness were observed. Furthermore, 19 participants among those who donated were asked about their reasons for participating in such prosocial behavior. Results: Prosocial behavior of anonymous peers (confederates) exerts a profound influence on college students’ participation in a signature campaign and money donation, whereas the reading of a prosocial paragraph has no effect. Furthermore, no participants reported peer influence as a reason for engaging in prosocial behavior. Conclusion: This finding supports and extends recent research examining the positive impacts of anonymous peers on prosocial behavior. Prosocial behavior is not only a foundational and consistent aspect of personality, as previous studies report, but is also highly malleable and unstable in response to immediate situations.

Suggested Citation

  • Soowon Park & Jongho Shin, 2017. "The influence of anonymous peers on prosocial behavior," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-21, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0185521
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185521
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185521
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185521&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0185521?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yoshie Matsumoto & Toshio Yamagishi & Yang Li & Toko Kiyonari, 2016. "Prosocial Behavior Increases with Age across Five Economic Games," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-16, July.
    2. Martin, Richard & Randal, John, 2008. "How is donation behaviour affected by the donations of others?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 228-238, July.
    3. Sarah Smith & Frank Windmeijer & Edmund Wright, 2015. "Peer Effects in Charitable Giving: Evidence from the (Running) Field," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 125(585), pages 1053-1071, June.
    4. Shantz, Amanda & Latham, Gary P., 2009. "An exploratory field experiment of the effect of subconscious and conscious goals on employee performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 9-17, May.
    5. Simon Gächter & Daniele Nosenzo & Martin Sefton, 2013. "Peer Effects In Pro-Social Behavior: Social Norms Or Social Preferences?," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 548-573, June.
    6. David Reinstein & Gerhard Riener, 2012. "Reputation and influence in charitable giving: an experiment," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(2), pages 221-243, February.
    7. Meer, Jonathan, 2011. "Brother, can you spare a dime? Peer pressure in charitable solicitation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 926-941.
    8. Friederike Mengel, 2014. "Computer Games and Prosocial Behaviour," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-5, April.
    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. Drouvelis, Michalis & Marx, Benjamin M., 2022. "Can charitable appeals identify and exploit belief heterogeneity?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 631-649.
    2. Park, Sangkon & Nam, Sohyun & Lee, Jungmin, 2017. "Charitable giving, suggestion, and learning from others: Pay-What-You-Want experiments at a coffee shop," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 16-22.
    3. Dimant, Eugen, 2019. "Contagion of pro- and anti-social behavior among peers and the role of social proximity," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 66-88.
    4. Michalis Drouvelis & Benjamin M. Marx, 2021. "Dimensions of donation preferences: the structure of peer and income effects," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 274-302, March.
    5. David Klinowski, 2021. "Reluctant donors and their reactions to social information," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 515-535, June.
    6. Zizzo, Daniel John, 2013. "Claims and confounds in economic experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 186-195.
    7. Gómez, Patricia & Shaikh, Nazrul I. & Erkoc, Murat, 2024. "Continuous improvement in the efficient use of energy in office buildings through peers effects," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 360(C).
    8. Ghosh, Sanmitra & Goswami, Mridu Prabal & Sarkar, Shubhro, 2025. "Moral wiggle room in the dictator game," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    9. Fazio, Andrea & Reggiani, Tommaso & Scervini, Francesco, 2023. "Social media charity campaigns and pro-social behaviour. Evidence from the Ice Bucket Challenge," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    10. Simona Cicognani & Sebastian Stein & Mirco Tonin & Michael Vlassopoulos, 2023. "Symbolic incentives and the recruitment of volunteers for citizen science projects," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 75(4), pages 923-940.
    11. Michael Sanders & David Reinstein, 2014. "Worth 1000 Words: The effect of social cues on a fundraising campaign in a government agency. A field experiment," The Centre for Market and Public Organisation 14/324, The Centre for Market and Public Organisation, University of Bristol, UK.
    12. Britta Butz & Christine Harbring, 2022. "Tipping for charity: a field experiment in charitable giving on free walking tours," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 92(5), pages 781-808, July.
    13. Rasooly, Itzhak & Rozzi, Roberto, 2024. "Masks, cameras and social pressure," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    14. Sasaki, Shusaku, 2019. "Majority size and conformity behavior in charitable giving: Field evidence from a donation-based crowdfunding platform in Japan," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 36-51.
    15. Juliane Proelss & Denis Schweizer & Tingyu Zhou, 2021. "Economics of philanthropy—evidence from health crowdfunding," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 57(2), pages 999-1026, August.
    16. Deng, Weiguang & Jiang, Shengjun & Li, Xue & Ye, Maoliang, 2024. "Peer effects in donations: Evidence from random assignment of college roommates," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 631-644.
    17. Scharf, Kimberley & Smith, Sarah, 2016. "Relational altruism and giving in social groups," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 1-10.
    18. Sarah Smith, 2012. "Increasing Charitable Giving: What Can We Learn from Economics?," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 33(4), pages 449-466, December.
    19. Sanders, Michael & Smith, Sarah, 2016. "Can simple prompts increase bequest giving? Field evidence from a legal call centre," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 179-191.
    20. John A. List & James J. Murphy & Michael K. Price & Alexander G. James, 2019. "Do Appeals to Donor Benefits Raise More Money than Appeals to Recipient Benefits? Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment with Pick.Click.Give," NBER Working Papers 26559, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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:plo:pone00:0185521. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.