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

165 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Artificial surveillance cues do not increase generosity: two meta-analyses (2017, methodology): “Another supermarket study (Ekström, 2012) included a mix of aggregated and individualized measures.”
Eye Images Increase Charitable Donations: Evidence From an Opportunistic Field Experiment in a Supermarket (2012, background): “We found evidence that the eye-images effect was significantly greater when the supermarket was quiet, concurring with the findings of Ernest-Jones et al. (2011) and Ekström (2011) that eye images are most effective when there are few real people around.”
What's the right thing to do? Increasing pro-sociality with simple moral nudges (2017, unknown): “Several mechanisms to promote prosocial behaviour have been explored in previous work, including giving material reward, such as a t-shirt or a mug, in exchange to a prosocial action (54-55), augmenting donations using matching (56-57), making people’s actions observable by others (58-59), informing”
The watching eyes effect in the Dictator Game: it's not how much you give, it's being seen to give something (2013, methodology): “There has also been a replication using a non-monetary laboratory task (Bourrat, Baumard, & McKay, 2011), and a series of field studies showing that eye images can enhance generosity and prosocialbehavior in naturalistic settings (Bateson, Nettle, & Roberts, 2006; Ekström, 2011; Ernest-Jones, Nettle”