A Review and Framework for Thinking about the Drivers of Prosocial Consumer Behavior

Previous articleNext article FreeThe Prosocial ConsumerA Review and Framework for Thinking about the Drivers of Prosocial Consumer BehaviorKatherine White, Rishad Habib, and Darren W. DahlKatherine White, Rishad Habib, and Darren W. DahlKatherine White ([email protected]) is professor of marketing and behavioral science and academic director, Peter P. Dhillon Centre for Business Ethics, Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia. Rishad Habib ([email protected]) is PhD candidate in marketing and behavioral science, Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia. Darren W. Dahl ([email protected]) is senior associate dean and director, Robert H. Lee Graduate School, Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia.PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreIn recent years, the topic of prosocial consumer behavior has garnered more and more attention from consumer researchers, resulting in a steady increase in published journal articles on the subject—from 186 articles in 2000 to 1,763 articles in 2018 (fig. 1; see http://www.webofknowledge.com). Drawing on this momentum, this special issue of the Journal of the Association for Consumer Research on “The Prosocial Consumer” highlights different perspectives on the causes, motivations, and consequences of prosocial consumer behaviors. We conceptualize prosocial consumer behavior broadly and view it as encompassing any consumer behavior that leads to some cost to the self in order to achieve some benefit for others (Small and Cryder 2016). As such, prosocial consumer behavior could refer to an action that involves helping or benefitting a specific person or persons but could also reflect more general behaviors that benefit wider society. Prosocial consumer behaviors can include (but are not limited to) charitable giving and other donation behaviors (such as blood donation, organ donation, etc.), volunteering, altruistic consumer behaviors, ethical purchasing, cause-related engagement, and consumer advocacy or activism.Figure 1. Mentions of prosocial consumer behavior. Journal articles published with prosocial OR charitable OR ethical consum* behav* from 1990 to 2018.View Large ImageDownload PowerPointThe SHIFT Framework and Prosocial Consumer BehaviorRecently, the SHIFT model has been applied in the domain of encouraging sustainable consumer behaviors (White, Habib, and Hardisty 2019; White, Hardisty, and Habib 2019). This framework highlights five key drivers of behavior change: social influence, habit formation, the individual self, feelings and cognition, and tangibility. We suggest that the SHIFT model can be useful in categorizing prosocial consumer behaviors and their underlying psychological drivers. In this introduction to the special issue, we use the SHIFT framework to organize a review of the current state of prosocial consumer behavior research, to underscore factors that are the most important drivers in the prosocial domain, to highlight the articles in this issue of JACR, and to suggest directions for future research.Social InfluenceSocial influence stems from the presence, expectations, and behaviors of others. Such influence has been shown to motivate prosocial behavior via public observability, social norms, and social group memberships.Public ObservabilityFirst, factors that make a given action more public or observable to others lead to increases in prosocial consumer behaviors such as charitable giving (Benabou and Tirole 2003; Soetevent 2005; White and Peloza 2009) and choosing ethical products (Peloza, White, and Shang 2013). People are particularly inclined to donate more in public versus private when the charity is viewed as a “good cause” or when benefits to others (rather than self-benefits) are highlighted (Ariely, Bracha, and Meier 2009; White and Peloza 2009). Even creating the perception of observability, for example, through images of eyes watching the individual, can increase prosocial responses such as contributing to an office’s coffee fund (Bateson, Daniel, and Gilbert 2006), donating to charity (Ekström 2012), and giving more in a dictator game (Krupka and Croson 2016). However, there are conditions under which increasing the public nature of the action can decrease prosocial responses. In one example, those who publicly (vs. privately) displayed a token act of charitable support to others (such as joining a public Facebook group or signing a public petition) were less likely to subsequently provide meaningful support (e.g., donating money or volunteering time) when asked to do so. This “slacktivist” type of effect appears to be driven by the resolution of impression-management concerns, whereby the consumer has already conveyed a positive image to others via the first token prosocial action (Kristofferson, White, and Peloza 2014). Thus, public observability tends to increase prosocial behaviors, unless the individual has already had the opportunity to publicly signal his or her prosocial actions to others.In addition to social observability influencing prosocial outcomes, people make social judgments by observing the altruistic actions of others and inferring their motives. While observing other consumers (Aquino, McFerran, and Laven 2011) and firms (Sen and Bhattacharya 2001) behaving prosocially is generally judged positively, factors that signal self-serving motives—such as payment for advocates of a cause or donating to charity to gain publicity or improve public image—can lead to negative reactions toward other people (Newman and Cain 2014; Barasch, Berman, and Small 2016) and toward firms (Chernev and Blair 2015). Observers’ judgments of other people’s prosocial and moral actions can vary as a function of whether the target consumer is a low-income earner (Olson et al. 2016). In particular, those on government assistance can be judged harshly for ethical choices such as buying organic food or renting a hybrid vehicle because these consumers seem less deserving of being free to spend money as they wish.Social NormsProsocial actions are also heavily influenced by social norms, which convey information about what is approved of and viewed as appropriate by others in a given social situation. Norms have been shown to predict a variety of prosocial consumer behaviors such as monetary donations to charity (White and Peloza 2009), donating blood (Latour and Manrai 1989), volunteering (Fisher and Ackerman 1998), and engaging in sustainable consumer behaviors (White et al. 2019). Cialdini, Kallgren, and Reno (1991) and Cialdini, Reno, and Kallgren (1990) maintain that norms are best divided into two categories. The first is descriptive norms, which refer to information conveyed regarding what is commonly done by others. Descriptive norms have been shown to predict charitable giving (Frey and Meier 2004; Shang, Reed, and Croson 2008; Schrift and Amar 2015), increase volunteering (Chen et al. 2010), and facilitate other prosocial behaviors such as energy conservation (Goldstein, Cialdini, and Griskevicius 2008). Responsiveness to descriptive norms can be enhanced when the norm is made salient (Cialdini et al. 1990), when acting in a socially desirable manner is important (Cai and Wyer 2015), and when the collective (as opposed to the individual self) is activated (White and Simpson 2013). However, descriptive social norms should be used with caution because, if they convey the impression that an undesirable behavior is common, this can increase the tendency to engage in the negative behavior (Cialdini 2003, 2005). Similarly, norms that communicate low base rates of engaging in a behavior can decrease the tendency to engage in that behavior (Schultz et al. 2007; Gerber and Rogers 2009). Thus, descriptive norms can have a powerful influence on prosocial consumer behaviors but only when they communicate that the desirable, prosocial action is commonly engaged in by others.The second category of norms is injunctive norms, which refer to information conveyed regarding what is commonly approved and disapproved of by others. Injunctive norms can encourage prosocial behaviors but can sometimes backfire. For example, injunctive norms are less effective when consumers are in a more independent (vs. interdependent) mindset (White and Simpson 2013). In particular, communicating what others think one should do (“Your neighbors want you to grasscycle. Grasscycling is something we should do …”) along with individual-level statements (“you, as an individual”) leads to decreased sustainable actions compared to communicating the same message along with collective-self statements (“we, as a community”). In another example, assertive injunctive statements such as “Reducing air pollution: everyone must use more public transportation!” led to unfavorable reactions (Kronrod, Grinstein, and Wathieu 2012). However, consumers responded better to assertive requests in domains that they viewed as important. Thus, while injunctive norms can be impactful in influencing prosocial behaviors, they should be used with care, so as not to engender reactive consumer responses.Social Group Memberships and BelongingFinally, social influence is associated with prosocial consumer behaviors through people’s connections with important group memberships or social identities. Ingroups typically have greater influence on individuals than do outgroups. People are more likely to behave in a prosocial manner when norms and behavioral standards are set by an ingroup (Shang et al. 2008; Hysenbelli, Rubaltelli, and Rumiati 2013), when the beneficiary is part of the ingroup (e.g., Levine et al. 2005; Park and Lee 2015), and when people feel accountable to those with whom they share a broader social identity (e.g., fellow college students; Kaikati et al. 2017). In addition, when people learn that a negatively viewed “dissociative” outgroup has outperformed their ingroup on a positive, prosocial action (such as water conservation or composting), consumers often increase their own positive actions (White, Simpson, and Argo 2014). This tendency is heightened when the context is highly public in nature, because this increases consumers’ focus on the collective self. Thus, the work on social group memberships suggests that people will consume in a prosocial manner when such behaviors reinforce or defend the values and norms of the ingroup.Finally, a sense of social belonging or exclusion more generally can predict prosocial consumer behaviors (Twenge et al. 2007; Lee and Shrum 2012). For example, while social exclusion in the form of being ignored can increase conspicuous consumption and can decrease prosocial behaviors, being explicitly rejected can increase prosocial behaviors such as helping others and donating to charity (Lee and Shrum 2012). This is because social exclusion in the form of being ignored tends to threaten efficacy needs, while explicit rejection tends to threaten relational needs and leads to a desire to reconnect with others.Habit FormationHabit formation and behavioral learning techniques can also be used to encourage prosocial consumer actions. Habits form when actions are repeated over time in particular contexts (Ouellette and Wood 1998; Verplanken 2011). While, at first blush, it might seem counterintuitive to link prosocial behaviors with habit formation, researchers have found that prosocial behaviors can operate in a habitual manner. Indeed, prosocial behaviors often occur automatically (Cornelissen, Dewitte, and Warlop 2011), are made in a rapid and instinctive manner (Rand, Greene, and Nowak 2012; Lotito, Migheli, and Ortona 2013), and can increase when an individual is under cognitive load (Schulz et al. 2014). Moreover, neurological evidence suggests that prosocial actions can exhibit brain activation patterns that resemble those of habitual behaviors (Gęsiarz and Crockett 2015). Prosocial behavior can become habitual if practiced from a young age (Rosen and Sims 2011) and if behaviors are realized in small increments consistently over time (e.g., repetitive giving of a donation in small amounts; Meer 2013). Moreover, blood donations can be habitual in nature and can lead to future commitment to continue with the action (Ferguson 1996). Behavioral learning tools used to promote positive, prosocial habit formation by facilitating and encouraging repeated actions include making an action easy, offering incentives or punishment, and giving feedback.Making It EasyMaking behaviors easy to perform is the cornerstone of behavior change and can lead to greater monetary donations, volunteering, and other habitual prosocial behaviors (Gregory and Leo 2003; Biel, Dahlstrand, and Grankvist 2005). For instance, blood donation drives that minimize the distance people have to travel to donate blood (Olaiya et al. 2004) and checkout cashiers who ask people if they wish to simply “round up and donate the difference” can increase donations by reducing the effort and psychological discomfort that prosocial behaviors can sometimes entail (Kelting, Robinson, and Lutz 2019).One of the most powerful ways to make an action easy is to use defaults (Johnson and Goldstein 2003; McKenzie, Liersch, and Finkelstein 2006; Goswami and Urminsky 2016). Perhaps the most striking example is in the realm of organ donation. Countries that consider registration as an organ donor to be the default choice have much higher registration, often close to 100%, compared to countries that require individuals to opt in to organ donation (Johnson and Goldstein 2003). The power of defaults carries a downside. Defaults can reduce the average donation amount if they are set too low, decrease the influence of other important information such as third-party ratings of the charity's quality (Goswami and Urminsky 2016), and make it easier to carry out dishonest behavior (Mazar and Hawkins 2015). In situations where setting a default is difficult, expensive, or infeasible, active or forced choice can have similar positive effects, particularly if the favored alternative can be highlighted (Keller et al. 2011; Putnam-Farr and Riis 2016). Overall, then, making prosocial actions easy increases the likelihood that people will engage in the desired behavior.Incentives and PunishmentA key component of habit formation involves the reinforcement of behaviors. Learning theorists posit that prosocial actions can become learned behaviors because people will choose alternatives with a high probability of leading to satisfactory outcomes (and decreasing negative outcomes; Rushton and Teachman 1978). In other words, a prosocial behavior is more likely to become habitual if it is reinforced via incentives and rewards while other, non-prosocial actions are discouraged via punishments (Clotfelter 1980; Gilbert 2005). Incentives for prosocial behavior can be monetary, material, prosocial, or reputational, with different downstream consequences for each.Monetary incentives such as tax deductions can make it more cost-effective to act prosocially (Internal Revenue Service 2019) and increase charitable giving over the long run (Clotfelter 1980). Monetary incentives can be more motivating when incentive amounts are larger, while prosocial incentives that donate some money to a cause are less affected by the size of the incentive (Imas 2014; Charness, Cobo-Reyes, and Sanchez 2016). However, it is important to note that sometimes monetary incentives have unintended consequences because they can crowd out motivations to engage in the prosocial action (Gneezy and Rustichini 2000b; Meier 2007; Ariely et al. 2009; Gneezy, Meier, and Rey-Biel 2011; Barasch et al. 2016; Giebelhausen et al. 2016). In addition, turning the prosocial action into an economic transaction can have other undesirable side effects such as reducing the possibility of reputational benefits (Ariely et al. 2009) and making advocates seem less sincere to others (Barasch et al. 2016). Monetary incentives can also reduce guilt and increase satisfaction for those who choose not to participate in a charitable program (Giebelhausen et al. 2016).Noncash incentives, on the other hand, such as lottery tickets, gift cards, a paid day off work, scholarships, or material gifts such as T-shirts have a more positive effect on a wide range of prosocial behaviors including blood donations (Chrisman 1988; Lacetera, Macis, and Slonim 2012, 2013, 2014), charitable donations (Holmes, Miller, and Lerner 2002), energy conservation (Hutton and McNeill 1981) and kidney donations (Linford 2008). However just like monetary incentives, there is a notable caveat to using material incentives in prosocial domains: promise of gifts at the time of charitable giving can actually decrease the amount of donations (Newman and Shen 2012; Zlatev and Miller 2016). A purely economic perspective is likely to assume that individuals will respond positively to monetary and material incentives, but if they “crowd out” altruistic motives then lower prosocial behavior may be the result.Moreover, prosocial incentives whereby incentive money is donated to a cause can be a strong motivator, especially in comparison to equivalent small amounts of monetary incentives to the actor (Imas 2014; Tonin and Vlassopoulos 2014). Prosocial incentives can improve people's productivity and performance and increase prosocial choices such as blood donation (Mellström and Johannesson 2008). Reputational incentives such as making donation decisions public (Ariely et al. 2009) and newspaper announcement of donors (Lacetera and Macis 2010; Karlan and McConnell 2014) have been shown to increase donations. However, it is notable that public recognition for charitable giving can backfire when the consumer views the self as being independent from others (Simpson, White, and Laran 2018).Punishment for negative behavior can be social, potentially involving blame, ostracism, and/or reputational costs to the self (Feinberg, Willer, and Schultz 2014; Monroe and Malle 2019) or the group (Engelmann, Herrmann, and Tomasello 2018), or it can be financial, such as taxes and fines (Sussman and Olivola 2011). Certain consumers, particularly those who favor anti-tax political parties, are more motivated to avoid taxes than an equivalent amount of costs (Sussman and Olivola 2011), and this can lead to lower support for carbon taxes over offsets (Hardisty et al. 2019). Just as positive incentives can have unintended consequences, so can punishments. In one interesting example, researchers found that implementing a new fine on parents who were late picking up their children from daycare actually increased the undesirable behavior of late pick-ups (Gneezy and Rustichini 2000a, 2000b). It seems as though parents viewed the fine as a price paid for additional daycare service, rather than a punishment for poor behavior! Thus, while punishments can be used to shape positive, prosocial actions, they should be used with care, so as to avoid backfire effects.Feedback is another way to facilitate the formation of positive prosocial habits. Feedback involves receiving information on how one performed on the prosocial on the of charitable for example, has been shown to increase donation and and 2010), donor et al. 2013), and of quality from the charity and such as receiving or a gift out prosocial behavior can reinforce the such as repeated donations and 2010; et al. This reinforcement has been shown to occur if the is a such as an and 2015). Feedback is also effective when especially that are better in a prosocial domain and White et al. addition to social and habitual factors to the individual consumer can predict prosocial actions. In particular, the and individual are of prosocial consumer behavior that from the individual have a desire to maintain a positive view of the and can reinforce this via consumption and and prosocial behavior and 2009). are more likely to and maintain a positive image of the self through their prosocial actions when their identity is salient and and the self is viewed as being and 2016). wish to improve their moral can lead to increased prosocial such as increased donations, greater volunteering, and blood donation negative behavior and 2009; and 2011; and However, they have in a prosocial individuals may feel that they have moral and be less to to prosocial behavior in the For instance, acting or about how one in the can make people less likely to donate to or donate to charity and 2006; et al. 2009; et al. 2011) and more likely to or money from others (Mazar and people are to the in a negative of to perform a prosocial they might lower and 2018), the up to and 2018), or avoid the possibility of a prosocial and 2016). may also their perception of the of an action and Ariely negatively to learning of the consequences of their own consumption and 2010), and other consumers who more ethical consumption patterns than they do and to an can be another of While increasing focus on the self can lower in prosocial behaviors and Lee 2015), it can also increase charitable donations that on feelings and The of a can reduce the opportunity to signal altruistic motives (White and Peloza 2009; and 2012; and Cain 2014; and 2016; and 2016). of to engage in prosocial actions are often less effective than or altruistic in public (vs. situations (White and Peloza 2009), and self and is less effective than when one is used et al. 2012). that increase altruistic as a rather than that people might of or that people might in order to make a charitable lead to greater donations and cause-related and et al. a on consumers, rather than giving a has been shown to reduce and in greater and Small 2012). However, benefits to the self are an in and better helping are positive of moral (Barasch et al. 2014). the effects of can to consumers can view with a prosocial as and and social for can lead to lower reputational benefits (Newman and Cain 2014; and Blair are strong of prosocial those high in and 2011; and Barasch 2014; and Peloza Simpson et al. 2018), moral identity and and 2003; et al. 2011; et al. et al. 2016), collective (Shang et al. and 2014), and public (White and Peloza 2009) are more likely to behave Moreover, those with identity and 2015), political identity et al. and from a lower social et al. have been found to higher of prosocial high in moral identity is an important part of their are more likely to engage in prosocial behaviors and et al. 2011; Reed, and particularly toward of and 2003; et al. 2009). A focus on can lead to greater prosocial for instance, individuals with an and 2011; and Barasch 2014; et al. Simpson et al. 2018), consumers to be more et al. 2015), and those from a lower social et al. are more likely to engage in prosocial behavior. However, individuals and and and et al. will act more prosocially when the focus of charitable is in and motives rather than and altruistic in such as in a just (White, and 2012), in and 2016), and power distance and 2014; and also influence prosocial behavior. For instance, ethical products that promise such as are by consumers with a high in a just especially when there is a high for (White et al. and how individuals can make decisions on or cognitive Research suggests that positive and negative and can encourage prosocial actions, but these operate via different people sometimes are more likely to be and prosocial to others when positive and Miller 1988; and 2005). The of positive is enhanced when they are with the moral of the and 2019). Thinking about donating time (vs. can a more (vs. which can lead to higher charitable and 2008). work that acting in a prosocial manner by money on other people can promote positive such as and and can lead to feelings of a addition, specific positive such as et al. 2015), et al. 2012), and 2016), and 2006; et al. 2010; and 2010), and and have been to prosocial actions. specific state that has been to prosocial behaviors is the moral when observing or about another individual moral behavior 2003; and 2010; et al. 2011). the on positive we can that positive are often to increases in prosocial can also lead to prosocial actions, an effect that is often driven by the desire to or negative (Cialdini et al. The negative of guilt has been in the domain of encouraging prosocial consumer behaviors and and and 2008; and 2012). In guilt can motivate prosocial actions like charitable giving and ethical purchasing, but guilt appears to be most effective when it not of et al. when a amount of guilt is activated and and when guilt is more versus explicitly activated et al. 2013). Research also suggests that the of future guilt can ethical making and consumer choice and 2006; Peloza et al. to a to observing another and is often to the to feel and for others and et al. et al. While some view as a purely altruistic to another and others suggest that is to a desire to (Cialdini et al. In the domain of charitable that by negative and on