Julian J. Zlatev and Todd Rogers, "Returnable Reciprocity: When Optional Gifts Increase Compliance.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
161(S): 74-84, November 2020.- Sometimes a charity, say, will send potential contributors a small gift along with a request for a donation. They presumably are trying to take advantage of a human propensity to reciprocate gifts, which might in part derive from an aversion of feeling indebted.
- "Returnable reciprocity" is when the gift that is first sent is explicitly made returnable. The return of the gift by non-contributors is not required, it is perfectly OK to keep the gift and not contribute. Is it possible that by including the option to return the gift, people are more likely to contribute or to otherwise reciprocate?
- Note that with a return option, one has a new channel to avoid the guilt of not reciprocating the gift, beyond contributing – namely, returning the gift.
- The authors conduct six experiments looking at returnable reciprocity in the context of trying to incentivize people to participate in rather virtuous behavior, behavior they would think it admirable to do – like signing up for their employer's wellness program.
- The first experiment involves a hypothetical choice, of whether you would sign up for a wellness program, if you were first gifted $5. In one condition, you keep the money and either join or not, but in the second condition, you can keep the money and join or not, or return the money (and presumably not join). The returnable condition yields a higher percentage of folks saying they will join.
- The second experiment, this one a field experiment, concerns returning a filled-out survey, and being gifted $5 in advance. Once again, the returnable variant increases compliance (returning the completed survey). "Study 2 found that the addition of a single line mentioning the possibility of returning the gift led to a 26% increase in compliance over a traditional reciprocity request [p. 80]."
- Other experiments find that people in the returnable reciprocity condition anticipate feeling more guilty for a failure to comply, and that when given the choice between a standard reciprocity condition and a reciprocal reciprocity condition, people prefer standard reciprocity. Nudging via reciprocal reciprocity might increase compliance, but it might not be a nudge "for good."
- Is “honesty” a stable trait of individuals that is displayed evenhandedly at work, in relationships, and in other life domains?
- The authors posit that honesty is domain-specific, that a person who tends to behave honestly in a work setting might nevertheless behave dishonestly in relationships. Dishonesty is about bad barrels, not bad apples.
- Previous research has shown that individual characteristics influence honesty, as do seemingly minor environmental factors: better lighting, for instance, might reduce cheating.
- Positive interpersonal feedback could arise from dishonest behavior; for instance, honesty is some settings might conflict with a social norm.
- Garcia-Rada et al. propose (as mentioned above) that life domains affect dishonesty – but the influence of domains is nation-specific.
- A survey was given to ten participant groups in each of five countries: China, Colombia, Germany, Portugal, and the US. The overall sample size for the survey was a bit over 1000. Questions concerned honesty in eight "domains": work, government, business, relationships, friends, religion, strangers, and academics.
- The results are that indeed, honesty varies among countries and domains. "Results revealed an interaction effect between country and domain as well as intraindividual variation by domains [p. 21]."
