Letter | Published:

Credibility-enhancing displays promote the provision of non-normative public goods

Naturevolume 563pages245248 (2018) | Download Citation

Abstract

Promoting the adoption of public goods that are not yet widely accepted is particularly challenging. This is because most tools for increasing cooperation—such as reputation concerns1 and information about social norms2—are typically effective only for behaviours that are commonly practiced, or at least generally agreed upon as being desirable. Here we examine how advocates can successfully promote non-normative (that is, rare or unpopular) public goods. We do so by applying the cultural evolutionary theory of credibility-enhancing displays3, which argues that beliefs are spread more effectively by actions than by words alone—because actions provide information about the actor’s true beliefs. Based on this logic, people who themselves engage in a given behaviour will be more effective advocates for that behaviour than people who merely extol its virtues—specifically because engaging in a behaviour credibly signals a belief in its value. As predicted, a field study of a programme that promotes residential solar panel installation in 58 towns in the United States—comprising 1.4 million residents in total—found that community organizers who themselves installed through the programme recruited 62.8% more residents to install solar panels than community organizers who did not. This effect was replicated in three pre-registered randomized survey experiments (total n = 1,805). These experiments also support the theoretical prediction that this effect is specifically driven by subjects’ beliefs about what the community organizer believes about solar panels (that is, second-order beliefs), and demonstrate generalizability to four other highly non-normative behaviours. Our findings shed light on how to spread non-normative prosocial behaviours, offer an empirical demonstration of credibility-enhancing displays and have substantial implications for practitioners and policy-makers.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Data availability

All data are publicly available at: http://osf.io/wbmjc.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.

    Nowak, M. A. & Sigmund, K. Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature 437, 1291–1298 (2005).

  2. 2.

    Cialdini, R. B. & Trost, M. R. in The Handbook of Social Psychology (eds Fiske, S. T. et al.) 151–192 (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998).

  3. 3.

    Henrich, J. The evolution of costly displays, cooperation and religion: credibility enhancing displays and their implications for cultural evolution. Evol. Hum. Behav. 30, 244–260 (2009).

  4. 4.

    Kraft-Todd, G. T., Yoeli, E., Bhanot, S. & Rand, D. G. Promoting cooperation in the field. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 3, 96–101 (2015).

  5. 5.

    Tankard, M. E. & Paluck, E. L. Norm perception as a vehicle for social change. Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 10, 181–211 (2016).

  6. 6.

    Norenzayan, A. & Shariff, A. F. The origin and evolution of religious prosociality. Science 322, 58–62 (2008).

  7. 7.

    Lanman, J. A. & Buhrmester, M. D. Religious actions speak louder than words: exposure to credibility-enhancing displays predicts theism. Religion Brain Behav. 7, 3–16 (2017).

  8. 8.

    Willard, A. K. & Cingl, L. Testing theories of secularization and religious belief in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Evol. Hum. Behav. 38, 604–615 (2017).

  9. 9.

    Rogers, J. & Wisland, L. Solar Power on the Rise https://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/solar-power-technologies-and-policies.html (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2014).

  10. 10.

    Bollinger, B. & Gillingham, K. Peer effects in the diffusion of solar photovoltaic panels. Mark. Sci. 31, 900–912 (2012).

  11. 11.

    Graziano, M. & Gillingham, K. Spatial patterns of solar photovoltaic system adoption: the influence of neighbors and the built environment. J. Econ. Geogr. 15, 815–839 (2015).

  12. 12.

    Irvine, L., Sawyer, A. & Grove, J. Solarize Guidebook: A Community Guide to Collective Purchasing of Residential PV Systems (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, 2011).

  13. 13.

    Arechar, A. A., Kraft-Todd, G. & Rand, D. G. Turking overtime: how participant characteristics and behavior vary over time and day on Amazon Mechanical Turk. J. Econ. Sci. Assoc. 3, 1–11 (2017).

  14. 14.

    Imai, K., Tingley, D. & Yamamoto, T. Experimental designs for identifying causal mechanisms. J. R. Stat. Soc. A 176, 5–51 (2013).

  15. 15.

    Jordan, J. J., Sommers, R., Bloom, P. & Rand, D. G. Why do we hate hypocrites? Evidence for a theory of false signaling. Psychol. Sci. 28, 356–368 (2017).

  16. 16.

    Attari, S. Z., Krantz, D. H. & Weber, E. U. Statements about climate researchers’ carbon footprints affect their credibility and the impact of their advice. Clim. Change 138, 325–338 (2016).

  17. 17.

    Bryan, J. H. & Walbek, N. H. The impact of words and deeds concerning altruism upon children. Child Dev. 41, 747–757 (1970).

  18. 18.

    Chudek, M. & Henrich, J. Culture-gene coevolution, norm-psychology and the emergence of human prosociality. Trends Cogn. Sci. 15, 218–226 (2011).

  19. 19.

    Cialdini, R. B. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (Collins, New York, 2009).

  20. 20.

    Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches (Routledge, New York, 2018).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was made possible by US Department of Energy (award DE-EE0006128), the Templeton World Charity Foundation (grant no. TWCF0209) and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency NGS2 programme (grant no. D17AC00005). The authors thank S. Carattini, C. Moya and M. Hoffman for their helpful feedback on drafts of this manuscript, and D. Banko and C. Borden for research assistance.

Reviewer information

Nature thanks A. Grønhøj, L. Stanca and the other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

    • Gordon T. Kraft-Todd
  2. Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    • Bryan Bollinger
  3. School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

    • Kenneth Gillingham
  4. Toulouse School of Economics, University of Toulouse Capitole, Toulouse, France

    • Stefan Lamp
  5. Sloan School and Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

    • David G. Rand

Authors

  1. Search for Gordon T. Kraft-Todd in:

  2. Search for Bryan Bollinger in:

  3. Search for Kenneth Gillingham in:

  4. Search for Stefan Lamp in:

  5. Search for David G. Rand in:

Contributions

K.G. and B.B. designed and conducted the field study. G.T.K.-T. and S.L. analysed the results of the field study. G.T.K.-T. and D.G.R. designed the online experiments. G.T.K.-T. conducted the online experiments and analysed the results. G.T.K.-T., B.B., K.G., S.L. and D.G.R. wrote the paper.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Gordon T. Kraft-Todd or David G. Rand.

Extended data figures and tables

  1. Extended Data Fig. 1 Results of the norming study regarding injunctive norms.

    Distributions are shown of subjects’ (n = 100) responses to the question: ‘in your opinion, how much do people in your community think doing this behaviour is what you are supposed to do?’. Responses were given on a Likert scale between 1 (‘very little’) and 7 (‘very much’).

  2. Extended Data Fig. 2 Results of the norming study regarding descriptive norms.

    Distributions are shown of subjects’ (n = 100) responses to the question: ‘in your opinion, how many people in your community do this behaviour?’. Responses were given on a Likert scale between 1 (‘very few’) and 7 (‘very many’).

  3. Extended Data Fig. 3 Example photographs from Solarize campaigns.

    ac, A live installation event (a), a campaign kick-off event (b) and flyers and signs for an informational event (c) are shown. Photographs courtesy of SmartPower.

  4. Extended Data Fig. 4 Mediation analysis for experiment 3.

    Because there is no evidence of heterogeneity in the effect of CREDs across non-normative public-good scenarios, we collapse across scenario (total n = 1,206) and see that subjects’ second-order beliefs fully mediate the effect of ambassador engagement on subject intentions to engage in the behaviour in question. All variables are standardized for this analysis. The correlations between ambassador engagement and second-order beliefs, second-order beliefs and subjects’ intentions to engage in the behaviour, and ambassador engagement and subjects’ intentions to engage in the behaviour (without (b) and with (b′) second-order beliefs as a covariate) are shown.

Supplementary information

  1. Supplementary Information

    This file contains Supplementary Sections 1-6 and Supplementary References - see contents page for details.

  2. Reporting Summary

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0647-4

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.