Do 'Watching Eye' Images Increase Charitable Donations?

Have you ever noticed a poster with a pair of staring eyes next to a line that reads: “Please donate here.” Or “No illegal parking?" Some studies claim that these watching eye images nudge people toward prosocial behavior and away from antisocial acts. But does the evidence stack up?

1. Early Evidence: Do Watching Eyes Increase Giving?

The idea that eye-like images affect prosocial behaviors was first demonstrated in Haley and Fessler (2005), and many subsequent studies have examined it. A vivid real-world example comes from Powell and colleagues (2012): for 11 weeks, they placed eye-like stickers on a donation box near a supermarket checkout and compared it with a box decorated with star stickers. The “eyes” box collected an average of £7.90 per week, while the “stars” box collected £5.48.

Many other studies echo these results. Eye images have been linked to greater generosity in lab games (for example, Haley and Fessler, 2005; Oda and colleagues, 2011), less littering in public places (Ernest-Jones and colleagues, 2011), and even a lower likelihood of lying (Oda and colleagues, 2015). The cue need not be a literal face; minimalist dot-pattern “faces” (Rigdon and colleagues, 2009) or even robot eyes (Burnham and Hare, 2007) can work too. Taken together, these findings hint that watching eye cues may heighten prosocial behaviors or suppress antisocial acts.

2. Mixed Results and Possible Moderators

However, not every study replicates the effect (Cai and colleagues, 2015; Tane and Takezawa, 2011; Otsubo and colleagues, 2023; Raihani and Bshary, 2012). Matsugasaki and colleagues (2015), for instance, conducted a money-allocation task and found no difference between eye images and geometric shapes.

Why the inconsistency? Several factors have been proposed:

• Timing: The cue might work only when seen immediately before the decision (Sparks and Barclay, 2013).
• Audience size: Watching eyes images could matter more when fewer real people are present (Ernest-Jones and colleagues, 2011).
• Norm salience: The effect may emerge only where prosocial norms are already obvious (Kawamura and Kusumi, 2017).
• Recipient or observer identity: The cue can be stronger for ingroup members (Mifune and colleagues, 2010) or people high in public-self-consciousness (Pfattheicher and Keller, 2015).

Yet even these refined predictions do not always hold. For example, the supposed short-exposure advantage (Sparks and Barclay, 2013) has not always been replicated (Rotella and colleagues, 2021; Sparks and Barclay, 2015). Similarly, the idea that norm salience moderates the watching eyes effect has not consistently reappeared in subsequent experiments (Kawamura and Kusumi, 2017; Oda and colleagues, 2016). In short, no single explanation has decisively accounted for the mixed results.

3. Meta-analysis: Attempts to Integrate Past Studies

Given the growing body of findings, several teams have turned to meta-analysis—yet their conclusions diverge. Northover and colleagues (2017) examined prosocial behaviors such as donations and found no reliable watching eyes effect. Bradley and colleagues (2018), however, reported that cues implying observation—even stylized ones—have a small but significant positive impact. Dear and colleagues (2019) reported benefits for curbing antisocial behaviors like littering.

How can meta-analyses disagree? Differences in inclusion criteria and in how watching eyes are defined matter. For example, research by Powell and colleagues (2012) was included in Bradley and colleagues (2018) but not in Northover and colleagues (2017). A clear consensus has not yet been established.

4. Where Does This Leave Watching Eyes?

Current evidence does not settle the question of whether eye cues reliably shift behavior. At best, the effect appears modest and highly context-dependent. That said, eye images are cheap to add to signs or donation boxes, so even a small uptick might be worthwhile, provided we measure whether it happens.

Altruism Essential Reads

Can Brain Stimulation Make Us More Altruistic?

3 Reasons Behind Compulsive Financial Giving

If you plan to use watching eyes cues in the real world, treat them as a tentative nudge, not a magic bullet:

1. Test them: Compare outcomes with and without the image.
2. Mind the context: Crowding, timing, and local norms could make or break the effect.
3. Watch the side effects: A creepy design might backfire, annoying the very people you hope to influence.

Ultimately, further research will be vital to clarify when and why watching eyes images work, and whether they merit a place in the practitioner’s toolbox.