Cited by 136Experimental Behavioral Economics StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsPsychology of Social Influence

Increasing altruistic and cooperative behaviour with simple moral nudges

Open access
Capraro, Valerio, Jagfeld, Glorianna, Klein, Rana, Mul, Mathijs, de Pol, Iris van·2019·Scientific Reports

Abstract

The conflict between pro-self and pro-social behaviour is at the core of many key problems of our time, as, for example, the reduction of air pollution and the redistribution of scarce resources. For the well-being of our societies, it is thus crucial to find mechanisms to promote pro-social choices over egoistic ones. Particularly important, because cheap and easy to implement, are those mechanisms that can change people’s behaviour without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives, the so-called “nudges”. Previous research has found that moral nudges (e.g., making norms salient) can promote pro-social behaviour. However, little is known about whether their effect persists over time and spills across context. This question is key in light of research showing that pro-social actions are often followed by selfish actions, thus suggesting that some moral manipulations may backfire. Here we present a class of simple moral nudges that have a great positive impact on pro-sociality. In Studies 1–4 (total N = 1,400), we use economic games to demonstrate that asking subjects to self-report “what they think is the morally right thing to do” does not only increase pro-sociality in the choice immediately after, but also in subsequent choices, and even when the social context changes. In Study 5, we explore whether moral nudges promote charity donations to humanitarian organisations in a large (N = 1,800) crowdfunding campaign. We find that, in this context, moral nudges increase donations by about 44 percent.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-019-48094-4

Cites

107 of 107 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Providing cues that make the morality of an action salient have also been shown to increase cooperation.

    “Providing cues that make the morality of an action salient (such as having people read the Golden Rule before making a decision or asking them to report what they think is the morally right thing to do) have also been shown to increase cooperation 189,190 .”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [71]Dennis, S. A., Goodson, B. M., & Pearson, C. Virtual private servers and the limitations of IP-based screening procedures: Lessons from the MTurk Quality Crisis of 2018. Available at SSRN, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3233954 (2019) (Date of last access: 28/05/2019).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Capraro, V., Jagfeld, G., Klein, R., Mul, M., & de Pol, I. V.
Affiliations
  • Middlesex University London (GB)
  • University of Stuttgart (DE)
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Capraro, Valerio
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2019-08-15
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
11880-11880
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2968470688
Cited by
135
References
106
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 2
FWCI
27.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Middlesex University Research Repository (Middlesex University Of London) (acceptedVersion)
  • BOA (University of Milano-Bicocca) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Psychology of Social Influence
Keywords
prosocial behavior, altruism, cooperation, spillover effects, backfire effect, charitable giving, crowdfunding, humanitarian organizations, economic games
MeSH terms
Altruism, Choice Behavior, Cooperative Behavior, Decision Making, Games, Experimental, Humans, Morals, Social Behavior, Social Environment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review