Skip to main content
About HEC About HEC
Summer School Summer School
Faculty & Research Faculty & Research
Master’s programs Master’s programs
Bachelor Programs Bachelor Programs
MBA Programs MBA Programs
PhD Program PhD Program
Executive Education Executive Education
HEC Online HEC Online
About HEC
Overview Overview
Who
We Are
Who
We Are
Egalité des chances Egalité des chances
HEC Talents HEC Talents
International International
Campus
Life
Campus
Life
Sustainability Sustainability
Diversity
& Inclusion
Diversity
& Inclusion
Stories Stories
The HEC
Foundation
The HEC
Foundation
Summer School
Youth Programs Youth Programs
Summer programs Summer programs
Online Programs Online Programs
Faculty & Research
Overview Overview
Faculty Directory Faculty Directory
Departments Departments
Centers Centers
Chairs Chairs
Grants Grants
Knowledge@HEC Knowledge@HEC
Master’s programs
Master in
Management
Master in
Management
Master's
Programs
Master's
Programs
Double Degree
Programs
Double Degree
Programs
Bachelor
Programs
Bachelor
Programs
Summer
Programs
Summer
Programs
Exchange
students
Exchange
students
Student
Life
Student
Life
Our
Difference
Our
Difference
Bachelor Programs
Overview Overview
Course content Course content
Admissions Admissions
Fees and Financing Fees and Financing
MBA Programs
MBA MBA
Executive MBA Executive MBA
TRIUM EMBA TRIUM EMBA
PhD Program
Overview Overview
HEC Difference HEC Difference
Program details Program details
Research areas Research areas
HEC Community HEC Community
Placement Placement
Job Market Job Market
Admissions Admissions
Financing Financing
FAQ FAQ
Executive Education
Home Home
About us About us
Management topics Management topics
Open Programs Open Programs
Custom Programs Custom Programs
Events/News Events/News
Contacts Contacts
HEC Online
Overview Overview
Degree Program Degree Program
Executive certificates Executive certificates
MOOCs MOOCs
Summer Programs Summer Programs
Youth programs Youth programs
Article

How to Explain Warm-Glow Giving?

Decision Sciences
Published on:

Stefania Minardi and Özgür Evren use decision theory to explain why some people experience a ‘warm-glow’ when they give time or money to good causes. Their analysis suggests that this feeling is proportional to the private cost incurred by the donor, provided that he could have chosen a more selfish option.

How to explain warm-glow giving? by Stefania Minardi ©Fotolia_gustavo Frazao

Despite the standard economic paradigm that we are all self-interested, plenty of people get involved in prosocial or philanthropic activities: charitable contributions, blood donations, voting, recycling, and so on. However, experimental and empirical evidence shows that this behavior may not be entirely altruistic. Studies show several other factors at work. For example, an individual may enjoy giving to improve his social image or gain acclaim. Other individuals may dislike giving, yet behave prosocially to avoid public shame or private guilt. “Identifying the behavioral distinctions between different motivations for prosocial behavior is a task of major importance for welfare analysis,” Stefania Minardi says.

People derive personal satisfaction from giving

Minardi and Özgür Evren (New Economic School) focus on a particular form of giving, dubbed in the literature as ‘warm-glow’ giving, which refers to prosocial behavior that causes donors to experience positive feelings, irrespective of whether their giving actually makes a difference. This is the personal satisfaction for having ‘done the right thing’: you give up what is rightfully yours for a philanthropic cause and you feel good about it.

This is quite different from pure altruism, when a donor genuinely cares about the wellbeing of the recipient. Researchers have often found it useful to take into account a warm-glow component, because it provides a way to fill the gap between the standard model of altruism and the empirical evidence on charitable giving. But what are the forces driving warm-glow giving? In their paper, Minardi and Evren tackle this question by providing a behavioral foundation. 

 

Rewards or punishment schemes may have detrimental effects and trigger more selfish behavior.

 

People do not always respond as expected to incentive schemes  

Minardi and Evren’s research suggests that the relevance of the notion of warm-glow is linked to more primitive behavioral origins. “Instead of assuming the warm-glow hypothesis, we went back a step to see where the warm-glow motivation may originate,” says Minardi. They imposed behavioral properties based on observations from experimental studies, which have investigated the phenomenon known as ‘motivation crowding out’. Motivation crowding out helps to explain why people sometimes do not respond as expected to incentives and punishment schemes.

Minardi explains the concept as follows: “If a person has a strong sense of civic duty or just wants to boost his self-image as a generous fellow, then rewards or punishment schemes may have detrimental effects and trigger more selfish behavior. Motivated people don’t like their personal drive being overridden by external interference.” Perhaps the most well-known example of this counterintuitive behavior goes back to the 1970s when studies suggested that fewer people would give blood when paid for their donations. 

Freedom to be selfish increases perceived value of giving

Evren and Minardi establish a precise relationship between motivation crowding out and some prominent warm-glow models. A key feature of their model is that the value of a prosocial action depends on the alternatives available. When an individual is obliged to contribute to a public good (such as through taxation), he perceives far less value in that act than when he voluntarily contributes of his own free will. “In our model, the donor enjoys having selfish options, even if he does not plan to select them. Choosing to behave prosocially can act as a signal of generosity only if he has the freedom to choose a more selfish option instead. In this sense, the agents studied in our paper exhibit a ‘preference for freedom to behave selfishly’,” Minardi explains.

Acting generously instead of selfishly comes at a private cost, but it has a positive effect on the well-being of the donor, irrespective of the material consequences. This cost is how much a person has to give up by acting prosocially and, therefore, it increases with the most selfish alternative available. Hence, an individual who experiences warm-glow may react negatively to sanctions against selfish behavior or rewards to foster virtuous actions, because such extrinsic incentives reduce the private cost of acting prosocially, which leads to a weaker signal of generosity.

“We focused on people who are intrinsically motivated or driven by social-image concerns,” Minardi concludes. “We did not look at other drivers, for example public shame or private guilt, which have been studied by other researchers in the field. It is likely that many individuals will have a complex mix of all these factors.”

Practical Applications

Focus - Application pour les marques
Based on their study, the authors highlight the relevance for welfare analysis of distinguishing between warm-glow and other motivations for prosocial behavior. They suggest using the notion of motivation crowding out as a first step to test for the warm-glow hypothesis. When it comes to the complex issues related to public goods contribution or fundraising campaigns, understanding the real motivations behind giving is essential for designing effective policies.

Methodology

methodology
Minardi and Evren explored the behavioral foundations of warm-glow giving through a two-stage procedure, which has its basis in decision theory. In the first stage, a potential donor decides how much he will save today, hence determining his budget for tomorrow. In the second stage, the donor chooses an element from a menu (selected in the first stage) of social allocations between himself and the recipient, thereby deciding how to allocate his savings between private consumption and giving. This framework allows the researchers to show that someone who experiences warm-glow values the freedom to be selfish: he values the availability of selfish options even if he plans to act charitably.
Based on an interview with Stefania Minardi and her paper “Warm-Glow Giving and Freedom to be Selfish,” co-authored with Özgür Evren (Economic Journal, 2015).

Related content on Decision Sciences

Decision Sciences

Risking the future? How Delayed Consequences Can Bias the Perception of Risk

By Emmanuel Kemel

Brian Hill GREGHEC
Brian Hill
CNRS Research Professor
Emmanuel Kemel HEC professor
Emmanuel Kemel
CNRS Research Professor
Economics

How Much to Reveal to Persuade a Decision Maker?

By Tristan Tomala, Marie Laclau, Frédéric Koessler

Photo Credits: Fergregory / Adobe Stock

Decision Sciences

Black Swans and Other Challenges to Rational Decision Making

By Stefania Minardi, Itzhak Gilboa