Incentives, or nudges, to get people to do things — like donate organs, lose weight, and pick up dog feces — are everywhere; some work better than others. Here are a few that various Flickr users have come across:
Is this encouraging fellowship or chaperoning?
Flickr user theritter thinks 5 cents is a little low for an incentive.
According to Flickr user nicolasnova, it says something like “Use the stairs to harden the butt.”
This one may help kids get better grades, but it will probably undo the effects of using the stairs.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
I think the Macdonalds incentive is very large for kids, especially in a lower income place where Macdonalds would be more of a luxury item. Weather it is socially correct to encourage kids to do better in school by pushing greasy food in their faces is another story.
I remember when I was in 1st grade my teacher had a contest to see who would read the most books in a month. The reward was a trip to McDonald’s. I read 22 books and got 2nd place. Having McD’s be a reward isn’t bad. Having it be a meal plan, that’s the problem.
Training (or educating) involves input and reward. If McDonald’s works why not.
I don’t think you would get very far with tofu burgers
actually 5 cents is a good idea for a few reasons. First, to huge purchasers like Ralphs, its probably more than they pay for the bag. So if they paid more they’d be losing money, not something they’re likely to do voluntarily.
Second, there is a psychological principle that the most effective incentives for changing behavior are the smallest ones that work. As Festinger argued decades ago, small rewards creates a dissonance between 2 ideas: 1) I don’t like doing X 2) I’m only doing X because I’m paid to do X. If the reward is small, 2 isn’t a compelling explanation and people start to say their doing X because they like it. On the other hand if they are handomely paid to do X, there is no reason to change one’s attitude about X.
So with small rewards, not only are shoppers induced to recycle bags or bring their own, they’re being shaped to think they prefer to reuse bags and become more likely to do so in places where they’re not paid for doing so.
I think the first one isn’t encouraging anything, unless there is some awesome reason why people want to walk on the grass. It’s more of a notice that they don’t want to have to deal with tons of people walking across the grass, although the “senior members” are probably responsible enough to not make a mess.
Regarding bags, would a 5 cents per store-bag charge or tax be viewed differently than a 5 cents incentive or reward for not using the store’s bags? I would bring my own bags to the store without any incentive or tax; however, some people change their behavior to receive the modest reward. I imagine some additional people would change their behavior to avoid the charge, even though it’s essentially the same as the reward.
While the 5 cent incentive for reusing bags at Ralph’s is fine, unfortunately penalties seem to be more effective. Ever since Ikea started charging 5 cents per bag used people will go to any length to get out of there without using a bag.
Many stores, not just Ralph’s (I’ve recently moved to Mi from CA and have seen most chains offer the same 5 cents), will give you the credit for re-using any bag, including one you got from them.
Personally, I like the reusable ones because they’re sturdier and usable for many things other than just groceries. The ones I have now were bought from a Bel Air grocery store in CA for $.99 a piece a couple years ago and I can assuredly say that my ROI is pretty good.
I think that the combination of the nickel, the quality and usefulness, and the “environmental” factor all collude to incentivizing me toward their use.