Thinking of norms—or being told what they are: The effect of social information on donation decisions

The effect of social information (descriptive versus injunctive norms) on people's donation decisions was examined in two studies. In Study 1 (N=376) participants received information about the norm (a high versus a low anchor) for each norm type, while in Study 2 (N=392) participants were instructed to think of the social norm (what one ought to do vs. what most people do) before their donation decision. Results suggest that when actual information was given (Study 1), a high anchor reduced participants' initial willingness to donate-but among those who did decide to donate, the high anchor resulted in greater donation amounts than the low anchor. This pattern held true for both injunctive and descriptive norms. Merely thinking about the injunctive norm-without any anchor (Study 2)-increased donations, compared with thinking about the descriptive norm, or control conditions. Possible explanations, and the implications for charitable giving are discussed.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLoS ONE
Published
2025-04-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321547
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Behavioral Health and Interventions
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.54
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Thinking of norms—or being told what they are: The effect of social information on donation decisions

Hagit Sabato
1 citations
PLoS ONE
Behavioral Health and Interventions
1.54
article

Thinking of norms—or being told what they are: The effect of social information on donation decisions

Hagit Sabato
article en
1 citations

Abstract

The effect of social information (descriptive versus injunctive norms) on people's donation decisions was examined in two studies. In Study 1 (N=376) participants received information about the norm (a high versus a low anchor) for each norm type, while in Study 2 (N=392) participants were instructed to think of the social norm (what one ought to do vs. what most people do) before their donation decision. Results suggest that when actual information was given (Study 1), a high anchor reduced participants' initial willingness to donate-but among those who did decide to donate, the high anchor resulted in greater donation amounts than the low anchor. This pattern held true for both injunctive and descriptive norms. Merely thinking about the injunctive norm-without any anchor (Study 2)-increased donations, compared with thinking about the descriptive norm, or control conditions. Possible explanations, and the implications for charitable giving are discussed.

PLoS ONEVol. 20(4)
Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
Openalex Percentile: Top 18%
Behavioral Health and Interventions
1.54
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.