IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/6548.html

(Ineffective) messages to encourage recycling : evidence from a randomized evaluation in Peru

Author

Listed:
  • Chong, Alberto
  • Karlan, Dean
  • Shapiro, Jeremy
  • Zinman, Jonathan

Abstract

There is growing interest in using messaging to drive prosocial behaviors, which contribute to investment in public goods. The authors worked with a leading nongovernmental organization in Peru to randomize nine different prorecycling messages that were crafted on the basis of best practices, prior evidence, and theories of behavioral change. Different variants emphasized information on environmental or social benefits, social comparisons, social sanctions, authority, and reminders. None of the messages had significant effects on recycling behavior. However, reducing the cost of ongoing participation by providing a recycling bin significantly increased recycling among enrolled households.

Suggested Citation

  • Chong, Alberto & Karlan, Dean & Shapiro, Jeremy & Zinman, Jonathan, 2013. "(Ineffective) messages to encourage recycling : evidence from a randomized evaluation in Peru," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6548, The World Bank.
    • Handle: RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:6548
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2013/07/29/000158349_20130729094935/Rendered/PDF/WPS6548.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alpizar, Francisco & Carlsson, Fredrik & Johansson-Stenman, Olof, 2008. "Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: Evidence from voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(5-6), pages 1047-1060, June.
    2. Marianne Bertrand & Dean Karlan & Sendhil Mullainathan & Eldar Shafir & Jonathan Zinman, 2010. "What's Advertising Content Worth? Evidence from a Consumer Credit Marketing Field Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 125(1), pages 263-306.
    3. Victor Stango & Jonathan Zinman, 2014. "Limited and Varying Consumer Attention: Evidence from Shocks to the Salience of Bank Overdraft Fees," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 27(4), pages 990-1030.
    4. Noah J. Goldstein & Robert B. Cialdini & Vladas Griskevicius, 2008. "A Room with a Viewpoint: Using Social Norms to Motivate Environmental Conservation in Hotels," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(3), pages 472-482, March.
    5. Bruno S. Frey & Stephan Meier, 2004. "Social Comparisons and Pro-social Behavior: Testing "Conditional Cooperation" in a Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(5), pages 1717-1722, December.
    6. Gerber, Alan S. & Green, Donald P. & Larimer, Christopher W., 2008. "Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(1), pages 33-48, February.
    7. Elster, Jon, 1989. "Social Norms and Economic Theory," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 3(4), pages 99-117, Fall.
    8. Choi, James J. & Haisley, Emily & Kurkoski, Jennifer & Massey, Cade, 2017. "Small cues change savings choices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 378-395.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Neckermann, Susanne & Turmunkh, Uyanga & van Dolder, Dennie & Wang, Tong V., 2022. "Nudging student participation in online evaluations of teaching: Evidence from a field experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    2. Yokoo, Hide-Fumi & Kawai, Kosuke & Higuchi, Yuki, 2018. "Informal recycling and social preferences: Evidence from household survey data in Vietnam," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 109-124.
    3. Andrew Dustan & Juan Manuel Hernandez-Agramonte & Stanislao Maldonado, 2018. "Motivating bureaucrats with non-monetary incentives when state capacity is weak: Evidence from large-scale," Natural Field Experiments 00664, The Field Experiments Website.
    4. Jaime Torres, Mónica M. & Carlsson, Fredrik, 2018. "Direct and spillover effects of a social information campaign on residential water-savings," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 222-243.
    5. Chantal Toledo, 2016. "Do Environmental Messages Work on the Poor? Experimental Evidence from Brazilian Favelas," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 3(1), pages 37-83.
    6. Fuhrmann-Riebel, Hanna & D’Exelle, Ben & López Vargas, Kristian & Tonke, Sebastian & Verschoor, Arjan, 2024. "Correcting misperceptions about trends and norms to address weak collective action — Experimental evidence from a recycling program," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    7. Dustan, Andrew & Hernandez-Agramonte, Juan Manuel & Maldonado, Stanislao, 2023. "Motivating bureaucrats with behavioral insights when state capacity is weak: Evidence from large-scale field experiments in Peru," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    8. Dammert, Ana C. & Galdo, Jose C. & Galdo, Virgilio, 2014. "Preventing dengue through mobile phones: Evidence from a field experiment in Peru," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 147-161.
    9. Dustan, Andrew & Maldonado, Stanislao & Hernandez-Agramonte, Juan Manuel, 2018. "Motivating bureaucrats with non-monetary incentives when state capacity is weak: Evidence from large-scale field experiments in Peru," MPRA Paper 90952, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Juliane Zenker & Andreas Wagener & Sebastian Vollmer, 2018. "Better Knowledge Need Not Affect Behavior: A Randomized Evaluation of the Demand for Lottery Tickets in Rural Thailand," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 32(3), pages 570-583.
    11. Swati Dhingra & Stephen Machin, 2025. "Citizen training and the urban waste footprint," CEP Discussion Papers dp2124, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    12. Kiriaki M. Keramitsoglou & Konstantinos P. Tsagarakis, 2018. "Public Participation in Designing the Recycling Bins to Encourage Recycling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, April.
    13. Cai, Yong & Rafi, Ahnaf, 2024. "On the performance of the Neyman Allocation with small pilots," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 242(1).
    14. Jaime Torres, Mónica Marcela & Carlsson, Fredrik, 2016. "Social Norms and Information Diffusion in Water-saving Programs: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment in Colombia," Working Papers in Economics 652, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    15. Elena Borasino & Hanna Fuhrmann-Riebel, 2022. "New Kids on the Recycling Block: the Role of Supermarkets and Bodegas for Sustainable Consumer Behaviour in Lima," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 857-881, September.
    16. Yokoo, Hide-Fumi & 横尾, 英史, 2020. "Ethics of randomized field experiments: Evidence from a randomized survey experiment," Discussion Papers 2020-07, Graduate School of Economics, Hitotsubashi University.

    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. Timo Goeschl & Sara Elisa Kettner & Johannes Lohse & Christiane Schwieren, 2018. "From Social Information to Social Norms: Evidence from Two Experiments on Donation Behaviour," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-25, November.
    2. Kimbrough, E.O. & Vostroknutov, A., 2012. "Rules, rule-following and cooperation," Research Memorandum 053, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    3. Schmidt, Robert J., 2019. "Do injunctive or descriptive social norms elicited using coordination games better explain social preferences?," Working Papers 0668, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    4. Robert Neumann, 2019. "The framing of charitable giving: A field experiment at bottle refund machines in Germany," Rationality and Society, , vol. 31(1), pages 98-126, February.
    5. Kast, Felipe & Meier, Stephan & Pomeranz, Dina, 2018. "Saving more in groups: Field experimental evidence from Chile," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 275-294.
    6. 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.
    7. Konar, Avishek & Wilson, Robyn & Roe, Brian E., 2013. "Heterogeniety of Farmer Choices: Do Perceptions of Risk, Control, Likelihood of Damage and Sociability Affect Outcomes?," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150564, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Gee, Laura K. & Kiyawat, Anoushka & Meer, Jonathan & Schreck, Michael J., 2024. "Pivotal or popular: The effects of social information and feeling pivotal on civic actions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 404-413.
    9. Dean Karlan & Aishwarya Lakshmi Ratan & Jonathan Zinman, 2014. "Savings by and for the Poor: A Research Review and Agenda," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 60(1), pages 36-78, March.
    10. Verhaert, Griet Alice & Van den Poel, Dirk, 2011. "Improving Campaign Success Rate by Tailoring Donation Requests along the Donor Lifecycle," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 51-63.
    11. 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.
    12. Kessler, Judd B. & Low, Corinne & Singhal, Monica, 2021. "Social policy instruments and the compliance environment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 248-267.
    13. Lorenz Götte & Egon Tripodi, 2022. "Social Recognition: Experimental Evidence from Blood Donors," CESifo Working Paper Series 9719, CESifo.
    14. Alpízar, Francisco & Martinsson, Peter, 2010. "Don’t Tell Me What to Do, Tell Me Who to Follow! - Field Experiment Evidence on Voluntary Donations," Working Papers in Economics 452, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    15. Daniel Jones & Sera Linardi, 2014. "Wallflowers: Experimental Evidence of an Aversion to Standing Out," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(7), pages 1757-1771, July.
    16. Dean Karlan & John A. List, 2007. "Does Price Matter in Charitable Giving? Evidence from a Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1774-1793, December.
    17. Katherine L. Dickinson & Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Greg Madonia & Nicholas E. Flores, 2020. "Risk interdependency, social norms, and wildfire mitigation: a choice experiment," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(1), pages 1327-1354, August.
    18. Linek, Maximilian & Traxler, Christian, 2021. "Framing and social information nudges at Wikipedia," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 1269-1279.
    19. Anna K. Edenbrandt & Christian Gamborg & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen, 2020. "Observational learning in food choices: The effect of product familiarity and closeness of peers," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(3), pages 482-498, June.
    20. Dong, Bin & Dulleck, Uwe & Torgler, Benno, 2012. "Conditional corruption," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 609-627.

    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:wbk:wbrwps:6548. 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: Roula I. Yazigi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dvewbus.html .

    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.