ArticlePloS one2025
Thinking of norms-or being told what they are: The effect of social information on donation decisions.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Choosing to know: Children's decision to actively request social-norm information and their sharing behaviour.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The effect of social information (descriptive versus injunctive norms) on people's donation decisions was examined in two studies. In Study 1 (N=376) participants received information about the norm (a high versus a low anchor) for each norm type, while in Study 2 (N=392) participants were instructed to think of the social norm (what one ought to do vs. what most people do) before their donation decision. Results suggest that when actual information was given (Study 1), a high anchor reduced participants' initial willingness to donate-but among those who did decide to donate, the high anchor resulted in greater donation amounts than the low anchor. This pattern held true for both injunctive and descriptive norms. Merely thinking about the injunctive norm-without any anchor (Study 2)-increased donations, compared with thinking about the descriptive norm, or control conditions. Possible explanations, and the implications for charitable giving are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.