Came across this while researching on how & why people give money to charity, as I want to know the best ways to approach them apart from just facebook. Here are some of the key texts:We give when it can help us directly. Some giving is quite self-centered. Alumni giving, to take one example, has been found to correlate in size and frequency to a less-than-shocking variable: the age of one’s child and the likelihood of his or her applying to the school in question.
We give when it can help us indirectly, by raising our social status — helping us appear wealthy or generous. In another study on alumni giving, Yale economist Dan Karlan found (in a paper delightfully titled, “Hey Look at Me”) that individuals were more likely to give when offered public recognition in a newsletter and that they were more likely to donate at a higher level if informed that donors would be separated into giving “circles” based on the amount given. While we may not want to believe that we donate to charity for recognition and social status, empirical research has found that anonymous donations are exceedingly rare (perhaps as low as 1% of all donations) — even though they’re eligible for the same tax treatment as other donations.
We give to feel good. One way we know this is indirectly: by the fact that people seem to give to charity with little to no regard for the effectiveness of their donations. We also have some direct evidence: Recent brain imaging studies have shed light on the theory that we get a “warm glow” from giving to charity. In one specific study, giving money to a food bank activated some of the same brain areas activated by rewards such as receiving food or money.
We give to alleviate guilt and repair our self-image. In a recent column I discussed how when people focused on good things about themselves, they felt less need to engage in good deeds, such as donating to charity. Well, the flip side of that same experiment — where people wrote positive or negative essays about themselves and then were asked to donate up to $10 to a charity of their choice — is that the people who focused on the bad things about themselves donated five times more than those who wrote about their positive traits. As the study’s authors put it, “when moral identity is threatened, moral behavior is a means to regain some lost self-worth.”
We give when it can increase our odds with the opposite sex. In another experiment, by University of Chicago economist John List, a team tested the effectiveness of various door-to-door fundraising techniques. One technique that had tremendous success: turning up the hotness of the woman who asked for money (“a one-standard deviation increase in physical attractiveness,” in scientific lingo). This increased average donations by 50% to 135%. As the paper delicately puts it: “This result is largely driven by increased participation rates among households where a male answered the door.”
We give when it can help us indirectly, by raising our social status — helping us appear wealthy or generous. In another study on alumni giving, Yale economist Dan Karlan found (in a paper delightfully titled, “Hey Look at Me”) that individuals were more likely to give when offered public recognition in a newsletter and that they were more likely to donate at a higher level if informed that donors would be separated into giving “circles” based on the amount given. While we may not want to believe that we donate to charity for recognition and social status, empirical research has found that anonymous donations are exceedingly rare (perhaps as low as 1% of all donations) — even though they’re eligible for the same tax treatment as other donations.
We give to feel good. One way we know this is indirectly: by the fact that people seem to give to charity with little to no regard for the effectiveness of their donations. We also have some direct evidence: Recent brain imaging studies have shed light on the theory that we get a “warm glow” from giving to charity. In one specific study, giving money to a food bank activated some of the same brain areas activated by rewards such as receiving food or money.
We give to alleviate guilt and repair our self-image. In a recent column I discussed how when people focused on good things about themselves, they felt less need to engage in good deeds, such as donating to charity. Well, the flip side of that same experiment — where people wrote positive or negative essays about themselves and then were asked to donate up to $10 to a charity of their choice — is that the people who focused on the bad things about themselves donated five times more than those who wrote about their positive traits. As the study’s authors put it, “when moral identity is threatened, moral behavior is a means to regain some lost self-worth.”
We give when it can increase our odds with the opposite sex. In another experiment, by University of Chicago economist John List, a team tested the effectiveness of various door-to-door fundraising techniques. One technique that had tremendous success: turning up the hotness of the woman who asked for money (“a one-standard deviation increase in physical attractiveness,” in scientific lingo). This increased average donations by 50% to 135%. As the paper delicately puts it: “This result is largely driven by increased participation rates among households where a male answered the door.”
Thoughts: All the factors mentioned above is very true. However, it doesn't relate to my method of giving to charity, which is to sell T-shirts. On the other hand, I've noticed people's feedback tend to be: I am getting something when I give this £10. Therefore is not that they are giving for nothing, but they are giving because they can get something back.
For more info here.
For more info here.
