IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ratsoc/v37y2025i2p170-200.html

Effects of frames and incentives on prosociality in the lab. Comparing abstract and realistic scenarios

Author

Listed:
  • Davide Barrera
  • Sara Romanò
  • Giulia Bocca

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Davide Barrera & Sara Romanò & Giulia Bocca, 2025. "Effects of frames and incentives on prosociality in the lab. Comparing abstract and realistic scenarios," Rationality and Society, , vol. 37(2), pages 170-200, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ratsoc:v:37:y:2025:i:2:p:170-200
    DOI: 10.1177/10434631241307528
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10434631241307528
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/10434631241307528?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. Luccasen, R. Andrew & Thomas, M. Kathleen, 2014. "Monetary incentives versus class credit: Evidence from a large classroom trust experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 232-235.
    2. Camerer, Colin F & Hogarth, Robin M, 1999. "The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 7-42, December.
    3. Wei Zhan & Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2020. "Does How We Measure Altruism Matter? Playing Both Roles in Dictator Games," Monash Economics Working Papers 05-20, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    4. Ben-Ner, Avner & Kramer, Amit & Levy, Ori, 2008. "Economic and hypothetical dictator game experiments: Incentive effects at the individual level," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1775-1784, October.
    5. Axel Ockenfels & Gary E. Bolton, 2000. "ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 166-193, March.
    6. Alexander L. Brown & Jonathan Meer & J. Forrest Williams, 2019. "Why Do People Volunteer? An Experimental Analysis of Preferences for Time Donations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(4), pages 1455-1468, April.
    7. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gächter, 2002. "Altruistic punishment in humans," Nature, Nature, vol. 415(6868), pages 137-140, January.
    8. Bühren, Christoph & Kundt, Thorben C., 2015. "Imagine being a nice guy: A note on hypothetical vs. incentivized social preferences," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 185-190, March.
    9. Christoph Engel, 2011. "Dictator games: a meta study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(4), pages 583-610, November.
    10. Brase, Gary L., 2009. "How different types of participant payments alter task performance," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(5), pages 419-428, August.
    11. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. Christoph Bühren & Thorben C. Kundt, 2015. "Imagine being a nice guy: A note on hypothetical vs. incentivized social preferences," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(2), pages 185-190, March.
    13. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    14. Bartling, Björn & Özdemir, Yagiz, 2023. "The limits to moral erosion in markets: Social norms and the replacement excuse," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 143-160.
    15. Ashley Harrell, 2012. "Do religious cognitions promote prosociality?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 24(4), pages 463-482, November.
    16. Linardi, Sera & McConnell, Margaret A., 2011. "No excuses for good behavior: Volunteering and the social environment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(5), pages 445-454.
    17. Smith, Vernon L & Walker, James M, 1993. "Monetary Rewards and Decision Cost in Experimental Economics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 31(2), pages 245-261, April.
    18. Daniel Read, 2005. "Monetary incentives, what are they good for?," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 265-276.
    19. Andreas Bergh & Philipp C Wichardt, 2022. "Mine or ours? Unintended framing effects in dictator games," Rationality and Society, , vol. 34(1), pages 78-95, February.
    20. Gary L. Brase, 2009. "How different types of participant payments alter task performance," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(5), pages 419-428, August.
    21. Ashley Harrell, 2021. "How can I help you? Multiple resource availability promotes generosity with low-value (but not high-value) resources," Rationality and Society, , vol. 33(3), pages 341-362, August.
    22. Holmås, Tor Helge & Kjerstad, Egil & Lurås, Hilde & Straume, Odd Rune, 2010. "Does monetary punishment crowd out pro-social motivation? A natural experiment on hospital length of stay," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 261-267, August.
    23. Ropret Homar, Aja & Knežević Cvelbar, Ljubica, 2021. "The effects of framing on environmental decisions: A systematic literature review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    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. Emin Karagözoğlu & Ümit Barış Urhan, 2017. "The Effect of Stake Size in Experimental Bargaining and Distribution Games: A Survey," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 285-325, March.
    2. Koppel, Lina & Andersson, David & Johannesson, Magnus & Strømland, Eirik & Tinghög, Gustav, 2025. "Comprehension in economic games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    3. El Harbi, Sana & Bekir, Insaf & Grolleau, Gilles & Sutan, Angela, 2015. "Efficiency, equality, positionality: What do people maximize? Experimental vs. hypothetical evidence from Tunisia," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 77-84.
    4. Bogliacino, Francesco & Codagnone, Cristiano, 2021. "Microfoundations, behaviour, and evolution: Evidence from experiments," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 372-385.
    5. Gruner, Sven & Lehberger, Mira & Hirschauer, Norbert & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2022. "How (un)informative are experiments with students for other social groups? A study of agricultural students and farmers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(03), January.
    6. Walkowitz, Gari, 2019. "On the Validity of Probabilistic (and Cost-Saving) Incentives in Dictator Games: A Systematic Test," MPRA Paper 91541, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Vivek Suneja & Debashree Das, 2024. "Impact of Social Preferences, Trust and Behavioural Norms on Cooperation: Experimental Evidence from Prisoner’s Dilemma Game," Studies in Microeconomics, , vol. 12(3), pages 326-344, December.
    8. Christoph Bühren & Thorben C. Kundt, 2015. "Imagine being a nice guy: A note on hypothetical vs. incentivized social preferences," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(2), pages 185-190, March.
    9. Walkowitz, Gari, 2021. "Dictator game variants with probabilistic (and cost-saving) payoffs: A systematic test," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    10. Rainer Michael Rilke, 2017. "On the duty to give (and not to take): An experiment on moralistic punishment," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 87(9), pages 1129-1150, December.
    11. Mentzakis, Emmanouil & Mestelman, Stuart, 2013. "Hypothetical bias in value orientations ring games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 120(3), pages 562-565.
    12. Walkowitz, Gari, 2017. "On the Validity of Cost-Saving Methods in Dictator-Game Experiments: A Systematic Test," MPRA Paper 83309, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Smith, Alexander, 2015. "On the nature of pessimism in taking and giving games," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 50-57.
    14. repec:osf:socarx:psda5_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Antonio M. Espín & Diego Jorrat, 2025. "£1(£5) or Nothing in Dictator Games: Unexpected Differences," Working Papers 376, Red Nacional de Investigadores en Economía (RedNIE).
    16. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, "undated". "Third Party Punishment and Social Norms," IEW - Working Papers 106, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    17. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2018. "Incentives," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2018-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    18. Larney, Andrea & Rotella, Amanda & Barclay, Pat, 2019. "Stake size effects in ultimatum game and dictator game offers: A meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 61-72.
    19. Brosig-Koch, Jeannette & Griebenow, Malte & Kifmann, Mathias & Then, Franziska, 2022. "Rewards for information provision in patient referrals: A theoretical model and an experimental test," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    20. Dorian Jullien, 2018. "Under Risk, Over Time, Regarding Other People: Language and Rationality within Three Dimensions," Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, in: Including a Symposium on Latin American Monetary Thought: Two Centuries in Search of Originality, volume 36, pages 119-155, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    21. Pol Campos-Mercade & Claes Ek & Magnus Soderberg & Florian H. Schneider, 2025. "Social Preferences and Environmental Externalities," CESifo Working Paper Series 11895, CESifo.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:sae:ratsoc:v:37:y:2025:i:2:p:170-200. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.