IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v161y2020isp74-84.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Returnable reciprocity: Returnable gifts are more effective than unreturnable gifts at promoting virtuous behaviors

Author

Listed:
  • Zlatev, Julian J.
  • Rogers, Todd

Abstract

Increasing virtuous behaviors, such as initiating healthy habits, is an important goal for policymakers and social scientists. To promote compliance with requests to perform virtuous behaviors, we study “returnable reciprocity.” Whereas traditional reciprocity involves giving people unreturnable unsolicited gifts to encourage compliance, returnable reciprocity involves offering opportunities to return the unsolicited gifts if they choose not to comply. Four studies (and two additional supplemental studies) show that returnable reciprocity (compared to traditional reciprocity) leads to higher enrollment in a hypothetical workplace wellness program (Study 1), as well as greater compliance in an incentive-compatible large-scale field experiment (Study 2) and conceptual lab replications (Studies 3 & S1). Returnable reciprocity may be more effective than traditional reciprocity because it induces increased feelings of guilt for non-compliance (Study 3). Though making an unsolicited gift returnable can be inexpensive, it appears to impose psychological costs that negatively affect the tactic’s overall impact on social welfare (Studies 4 & S2).

Suggested Citation

  • Zlatev, Julian J. & Rogers, Todd, 2020. "Returnable reciprocity: Returnable gifts are more effective than unreturnable gifts at promoting virtuous behaviors," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 161(S), pages 74-84.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:161:y:2020:i:s:p:74-84
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.10.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597820303927
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.10.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jan-Emmanuel De Neve & Christian Krekel & George Ward, 2019. "Employee wellbeing: the impact on productivity and firm performance," CentrePiece - The magazine for economic performance 556, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    2. Hunt Allcott & Judd B. Kessler, 2019. "The Welfare Effects of Nudges: A Case Study of Energy Use Social Comparisons," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 11(1), pages 236-276, January.
    3. Stefano DellaVigna & John A. List & Ulrike Malmendier, 2012. "Testing for Altruism and Social Pressure in Charitable Giving," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(1), pages 1-56.
    4. Falk, Armin & Fischbacher, Urs, 2006. "A theory of reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 293-315, February.
    5. Cass R. Sunstein & Richard H. Thaler, 2003. "Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron," Conference Series ; [Proceedings], Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, vol. 48(Jun).
    6. Uri Gneezy & Pedro Rey-Biel, 2014. "On The Relative Efficiency Of Performance Pay And Noncontingent Incentives," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 12(1), pages 62-72, February.
    7. Damon Jones & David Molitor & Julian Reif, 2019. "What do Workplace Wellness Programs do? Evidence from the Illinois Workplace Wellness Study," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(4), pages 1747-1791.
    8. Gary Charness & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Incentives to Exercise," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(3), pages 909-931, May.
    9. Uri Gneezy & John A List, 2006. "Putting Behavioral Economics to Work: Testing for Gift Exchange in Labor Markets Using Field Experiments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(5), pages 1365-1384, September.
    10. Duncan S. Gilchrist & Michael Luca & Deepak Malhotra, 2016. "When 3 + 1 > 4: Gift Structure and Reciprocity in the Field," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(9), pages 2639-2650, September.
    11. Rogers, Todd & Bazerman, Max H., 2008. "Future lock-in: Future implementation increases selection of 'should' choices," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 1-20, May.
    12. Richard H. Thaler & Cass R. Sunstein, 2023. "Libertarian paternalism," Chapters, in: Cass R. Sunstein & Lucia A. Reisch (ed.), Research Handbook on Nudges and Society, chapter 1, pages 10-16, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Sebastian Kube & Michel Andre Marechal & Clemens Puppe, 2012. "The Currency of Reciprocity: Gift Exchange in the Workplace," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1644-1662, June.
    14. Long Wang & J. Keith Murnighan, 2017. "How Much Does Honesty Cost? Small Bonuses Can Motivate Ethical Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(9), pages 2903-2914, September.
    15. Timothy Gubler & Ian Larkin & Lamar Pierce, 2018. "Doing Well by Making Well: The Impact of Corporate Wellness Programs on Employee Productivity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(11), pages 4967-4987, November.
    16. Baicker, Katherine & Cutler, David M. & Song, Zirui, 2010. "Workplace Wellness Programs Can Generate Savings," Scholarly Articles 5345879, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    17. Martin A. Nowak & Karl Sigmund, 2005. "Evolution of indirect reciprocity," Nature, Nature, vol. 437(7063), pages 1291-1298, October.
    18. Bradley R. Staats & Hengchen Dai & David Hofmann & Katherine L. Milkman, 2017. "Motivating Process Compliance Through Individual Electronic Monitoring: An Empirical Examination of Hand Hygiene in Healthcare," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1563-1585, May.
    19. repec:feb:framed:0087 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Matthew Chao, 2018. "Intentions-Based Reciprocity to Monetary and Non-Monetary Gifts," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-18, September.
    21. Jan-Emmanuel De Neve & Christian Krekel & George Ward, 2019. "Employee wellbeing, productivity and firm performance," CEP Discussion Papers dp1605, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    22. Katherine Milkman & Todd Rogers & Max Bazerman, 2010. "I’ll have the ice cream soon and the vegetables later: A study of online grocery purchases and order lead time," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 17-35, March.
    23. Shalvi, Shaul & Dana, Jason & Handgraaf, Michel J.J. & De Dreu, Carsten K.W., 2011. "Justified ethicality: Observing desired counterfactuals modifies ethical perceptions and behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 181-190, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Eszter Czibor & David Jimenez‐Gomez & John A. List, 2019. "The Dozen Things Experimental Economists Should Do (More of)," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 371-432, October.
    2. Bogliacino, Francesco & Grimalda, Gianluca & Pipke, David, 2021. "Kind or contented? An investigation of the gift exchange hypothesis in a natural field experiment in Colombia," Kiel Working Papers 2199, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    3. Córdova, Angélica & Imas, Alex & Schwartz, Daniel, 2021. "Are non-contingent incentives more effective in motivating new behavior? Evidence from the field," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 602-615.
    4. Abel, Martin & Burger, Rulof, 2022. "Choice over Payment Schemes and Worker Effort," IZA Discussion Papers 15769, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Becker, Johannes & Hopp, Daniel & Süß, Karolin, 2020. "How altruistic is indirect reciprocity? - Evidence from gift-exchange games in the lab," VfS Annual Conference 2020 (Virtual Conference): Gender Economics 224592, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    6. Allcott, Hunt & Rogers, Todd, 2012. "How Long Do Treatment Effects Last? Persistence and Durability of a Descriptive Norms Intervention's Effect on Energy Conservation," Working Paper Series rwp12-045, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    7. Christiane Bradler & Susanne Neckermann, 2019. "The Magic of the Personal Touch: Field Experimental Evidence on Money and Appreciation as Gifts," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 121(3), pages 1189-1221, July.
    8. Blumkin, Tomer & Pinhas, Haim & Zultan, Ro’i, 2020. "Wage Subsidies and Fair Wages," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    9. Wendenburg, Oriana, 2020. "The Effect of Gratitude on Individuals' Effort – A Field Experiment," Junior Management Science (JUMS), Junior Management Science e. V., vol. 5(4), pages 429-451.
    10. Sauermann, Jan, 2015. "Worker Reciprocity and the Returns to Training: Evidence from a Field Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 9179, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Homonoff, Tatiana & Willage, Barton & Willén, Alexander, 2020. "Rebates as incentives: The effects of a gym membership reimbursement program," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    12. Bradler, Christiane & Neckermann, Susanne, 2016. "The magic of the personal touch: Field experimental evidence on money appreciation as gifts," ZEW Discussion Papers 16-043, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    13. Martin Binder & Leonhard K. Lades, 2015. "Autonomy-Enhancing Paternalism," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(1), pages 3-27, February.
    14. Constança Esteves-Sorenson, 2018. "Gift Exchange in the Workplace: Addressing the Conflicting Evidence with a Careful Test," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(9), pages 4365-4388, September.
    15. Gerard J. Van den Berg & Iris Kesternich & Gerrit Müller & Bettina Siflinger, 2019. "Reciprocity and the Interaction between the Unemployed and the Caseworker," CESifo Working Paper Series 7947, CESifo.
    16. Sautua, Santiago I., 2023. "Disentangling the influences of positive reciprocity and mood on gift exchange at work," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    17. Greer K. Gosnell & John A. List & Robert Metcalfe, 2016. "A New Approach to an Age-Old Problem: Solving Externalities by Incenting Workers Directly," NBER Working Papers 22316, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Kocher, Martin G. & Luhan, Wolfgang J. & Sutter, Matthias, 2012. "Testing a forgotten aspect of Akerlof’s gift exchange hypothesis: Relational contracts with individual and uniform wages," Discussion Papers in Economics 12816, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    19. Charness, Gary & Kuhn, Peter, 2011. "Lab Labor: What Can Labor Economists Learn from the Lab?," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 3, pages 229-330, Elsevier.
    20. Liran Einav & Stephanie Lee & Jonathan Levin, 2019. "The impact of financial incentives on health and health care: Evidence from a large wellness program," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(2), pages 261-279, February.

    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:eee:jobhdp:v:161:y:2020:i:s:p:74-84. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    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.