| | |
| ’Tis the season for new shoes, new iPads and larger TVs. It’s also the season for charitable giving. But why is it often easier to buy cool stuff — or even trinkets — for loved ones and ourselves than it is to donate to a good cause? In 1972, Peter Singer, now a professor of bioethics at Princeton University, became frustrated with how little people gave to famine relief. So he posed a question to get people thinking. His query was basically this: If you see a child drowning in a shallow pond no deeper than your ankle, should you not wade in and pull her out? Sure, it might ruin your suede shoes, but you do have to save the child, right? | | Professor John Arthur argued that if people could use their money to make their own lives happier, then they shouldn’t give it away. | | Failure to act in this situation, Singer claimed, was fundamentally the same as failing to give money for famine relief. He called it unethical. Not so fast, said John Arthur, then professor of philosophy at the State University of New York at Binghamton. Arthur pointed out that people often work hard for their money. He said it’s their money, and they have the right to do with it as they want. They have an obligation to give, he argued, only if it comes at no cost to themselves and their families. If people can use their money to make their own lives happier, then they shouldn’t give it away. Today’s experts take a different view entirely. |
|
|
| | | |
| Spelman College sophomore Kenya Handfield began advocating for children and social justice in 2015 with her initiative, Kenya’s Book Drive, designed to close the literacy gap for kids in Black and minority communities. Through her newest initiatives, Project FRESH and Project FRESH+, Kenya has helped raise $1.7 million to assist kids with college funding. “No person should have to defer or deny a dream because of financial instability, and this platform is foundational in closing the achievement gap experienced by thousands of minority people.” Kenya’s OZY Genius Award will help her achieve her goal of reaching more minority youths and abolishing educational inequalities once and for all. | | WATCH MORE HERE |
|
|
| | | | | |
| Many of today’s behavioral economists think that people are basically generous, and that we do want to give to causes like famine relief. What stands in our way, they say, is essentially a matter of logistics. | | Some behavioral scientists see this pattern as an indication that people learn over time that they can keep more for themselves, and choose to do so. | | Abhishek Rishabh, postdoctoral fellow at Northwestern University’s Golub Capital Social Impact Lab, studies how nonprofits can raise more money. He says that something as simple as a tedious donation form can dissuade people from giving. “I can buy something with one click, but I can’t donate with one click,” he explains. Another thing keeping potential donors from opening their wallets is a sense of doubt. Maddie Croucher, a behavioral science practitioner, says a major hurdle for would-be donors is “speculation whether your money is being used in an impactful way.” Rishabh agrees; he says people want to know that “their money is being used for something meaningful.” Both he and Croucher say this problem can be solved with what behavioral economists call a “nudge.” For instance, communicating about how donated money is used has been shown to alleviate such concerns and facilitate more giving. When they are nudged, people certainly do give, and give generously, says Rishabh. He points out there’s a pervasive myth that low-income households give a larger proportion of their income to charity than their affluent counterparts. Pointing to a study by researchers at Texas A&M University, he says it is not true that the rich donate proportionately less than the poor. In fact, there is evidence suggesting that rich people are more likely to donate — though he concedes that today’s super-rich certainly have the capacity to give more. Indeed, there is reason to be skeptical about the claim that people are fundamentally generous. Maxwell Burton-Chellew, evolutionary biologist and professor at Switzerland’s University of Lausanne, notes that the truth is more complicated. In experiments called “public goods games,” people demonstrate a tendency to give away money to others at their own cost. However, participants also tend to give away less and less money when the game is repeated in a second, third and fourth round. Some behavioral scientists see this as an indication that people learn over time that they can keep more for themselves, and choose to do so. |
|
|
| | | | | | | |
| This is a hectic season in an already fast-paced world. As both Croucher and Rishabh are quick to point out, charities in many ways must compete in the marketplace for our attention, right alongside all the companies hoping to capture our dollars. Charities must, in a sense, advertise, and their advertising needs to be savvy enough to rival the sale of a new device. That’s a tall order. | | Charities in many ways must compete in the marketplace for our attention, right alongside all the companies hoping to capture our dollars. | | Complicating this issue is the reality that charities are often not very good at nudging donors, to the point that they may ignore strategies that have proven highly effective. For instance, showing how many other people have donated to a cause tends to convince more donors to chip in. Rishabh says many charities fail to do this. In the absence of such nudges, we simply give less. A study by the Charities Aid Foundation in 2013 surveyed more than 700 of “Britain’s most generous people.” Asked what influenced their desire to give to charity, 96% said their ethics and 71% named their sense of faith. Less than half — 42% — said the enjoyment they feel from giving. |
|
|
| | | | | | |
|
|
