Back in "aught eight" I posted what I believed to be one of my most controversial beliefs. That I didn't support giving to what many consider to be worthwhile charities, the most controversial of which was cancer research. I was then convinced (read the conversation in the comments) by my loyal readers of the efficient benefits of those donations. That post was inspired by a Stand Up To Cancer celebrity campaign I saw on TV. It wasn't until recently that I figured out why that bothered me so much:
Every year, 90 percent of Americans give money to charities. Is such generosity necessarily welfare enhancing for the giver? We present a theoretical framework that distinguishes two types of motivation: individuals like to give, e.g., due to altruism or warm glow, and individuals would rather not give but dislike saying no, e.g., due to social pressure. We design a door-to-door fund-raising drive in which some households are informed about the exact time of solicitation with a flyer on their door-knobs; thus, they can seek or avoid the fund-raiser. We find that the flyer reduces the share of households opening the door by 10 to 25 percent and, if the flyer allows checking a `Do Not Disturb' box, reduces giving by 30 percent. The latter decrease is concentrated among donations smaller than $10. These findings suggest that social pressure is an important determinant of door-to-door giving. Combining data from this and a complementary field experiment, we structurally estimate the model. The estimated social pressure cost of saying no to a solicitor is $3.5 for an in-state charity and $1.4 for an out-of-state charity. Our welfare calculations suggest that our door-to-door fund-raising campaigns on average lower utility of the potential donors.
Giving may be better than receiving, but not when we're giving out of guilt.
Haha I hope this doesn't get as long as the last one.
ReplyDelete"Giving may be better than receiving, but not when we're giving out of guilt."
Why? The research you posted suggests that it would be costly for someone asking for donations not to use guilt. Guilt is a powerful motivator, as in a lot of cases it should be. I'm all about harnessing social pressure for good causes.
If guilt is a primary motivator of an organization's fund-raising campaign, a terribly apathetic support base will develop, which is bad for any organization. They should find a better sales pitch, or start advertising something that people value.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you don't like the Stand Up To Cancer ad because they are blaming you for cancer, as if you're responsible ("it's up to you"). They're selling a lie which will produce a lot of guilt motivated donations.
It's actually selfish if we're giving money because of a "warm glow" or out of guilt, and selfish giving won't produce great long-term results. On the other hand, think about Ron Paul raising a million dollars in a day - people were committed to the cause and weren't giving out of guilt. We all are the most sacrificial when we believe in the cause.
Giving increases happiness, when we believe in the cause.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree Brad, I would never advocate using guilt as a primary motivator. I'm not sure it's selfish to give because of a "warm glow," though.
ReplyDeleteI get a warm glow when I give my wife flowers, but if I don't care more about her than myself, it's not love - it's narcicissum
ReplyDeleteI don't think I agree. I personally don't regard doing something because you take joy in somebody else's joy as selfishness. I think that's more like holiness. It's kindof a John Piper perspective.
ReplyDeleteI'm not talking about having joy in somebody else's joy. I'm talking about being motivated only by the hope of my own personal joy. To give money away because it makes me feel good, without any consideration of the charity, is what Harrison is talking about I think. It's like the difference between lust and love. Lust uses someone else as an object of pleasure.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's possible for someone to have a "warm glow" from giving to a cause without taking joy in someone else's joy. Maybe it is, but I would imagine it's very rare. You like doing it because it helps someone else. I don't agree with separating that feeling from whatever other reasons you might give to a cause, and then equating it with narcissism, selfishness, or lust.
ReplyDeleteFigured I'd give you guys to space to chat for a while. Here are my thoughts:
ReplyDeleteI don't think guilt itself is bad, but the reality is it makes you less happy. I don't like when it is used to donate to charities because it literally makes people $3.50 poorer.
I'm not totally on board that using guilt will harm a charity (in fact it probably helps them reach their goal), but I agree they should try more to convince people of the good they can do, not the bad that will happen if they don't.
I'm will Brad on the "warm glow" feelings being selfish. I am generally nice and polite, not so people will be happy, but so they will like me (which makes me happy).
I think most people give to charity to feel like a good person, to feel justified. I think that only distracts from the reality of their brokenness. We should give out of the joy of what we have received, not so we will receive back.