Psychological barriers to effective altruism: Difference between revisions

{{shortShort description|AltruisticArea behaviorof that ignores cost-effectivenessstudy}}

Humans are motivated to give, but often not motivated to give most effectively.<ref name="Burum-2020" /> In the title of an article published in ''[[Nature Human Behaviour]]'' in 2020, Bethany Burum, [[Martin Nowak]], and Moshe Hoffman termed this phenomenon {{em|ineffective altruism}}, that is, relatively less sensitivity to cost-effectiveness in altruistic behaviour.<ref name="Burum-2020" /><ref name="Pummer-2023">{{Cite book |last=Pummer |first=Theron |title=The Rules of Rescue: Cost, Distance and Effective Altruism |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2023 |isbn=9780190884147 |location=Oxford |pages=206–207 |language=English}}</ref> In the domain of business decisions, investors look for how much return they will get for each dollar they invest. However, when it comes to the domain of altruistic decision-making, this line of thinking is far less common.<ref name="The Science of Giving-2011" /> Most donors seem to prioritize giving to charitable organizations that spend the least possible amount on running costs in the hopes of having more of their donation reach the destination.<ref name="Lewis-2018">{{Cite journal |last1=Lewis |first1=Joshua |last2=Small |first2=Deborah |date=2018 |editor-last=Gershoff |editor-first=Andrew |editor2-last=Kozinets |editor2-first=Robert |editor3-last=White |editor3-first=Tiffany |title=Ineffective Altruism: Giving Less When Donations Do More |url=https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/2412099/volumes/v46/NA-46 |journal=NA - Advances in Consumer Research |location=Duluth, Minnesota |publisher=Association for Consumer Research |volume=46 |pages=194–198}}</ref><ref name="Caviola-2014">{{Cite journal |last1=Caviola |first1=Lucius |last2=Faulmüller |first2=Nadira |last3=Everett |first3=Jim A. C. |last4=Savulescu |first4=Julian |last5=Kahane |first5=Guy |date=July 2014 |title=The evaluability bias in charitable giving: Saving administration costs or saving lives? |url=https://www.proquest.com/docview/1548669952 |journal=Judgment and Decision Making |language=English |volume=9 |issue=4 |pages=303–315 |doi=10.1017/S1930297500006185 |s2cid=18730753 |id={{ProQuest|1548669952}} |doi-access=free|pmid=25279024 |pmc=4179876 }}</ref>

While plenty of studies in the behavioral sciences have demonstrated the cognitive and emotional limitations in charitable giving, some argue that the reasons behind ineffective giving run deeper.<ref name="Jaeger-2022">{{Cite journal |last1=Jaeger |first1=Bastian |last2=van Vugt |first2=Mark |date=April 2022 |title=Psychological barriers to effective altruism: An evolutionary perspective |journal=Current Opinion in Psychology |volume=44 |pages=130–134 |doi=10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.09.008 |pmid=34628365 |s2cid=238582556 |via=Elsevier Science Direct|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Burum-2020" /> A study by [[Martin Nowak]] and fellow academics at [[Harvard University]] and the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]], suggested that the human tendency to ineffective altruism can be explained through [[Evolutionary psychology|evolutionary motives]] and [[evolutionary game theory]].<ref name="Burum-2020" /> They argue that society rewards the act of giving but generally provides no motivation or incentive to give effectively. Past research suggests that altruistic motives are distorted by, among other things, [[parochialism]], [[Social status|status]] seeking and [[conformity]].<ref name="Nowak-2006" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Panchanathan |first1=Karthik |last2=Boyd |first2=Robert |date=November 2004 |title=Indirect reciprocity can stabilize cooperation without the second-order free rider problem |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02978 |journal=Nature |language=en |volume=432 |issue=7016 |pages=499–502 |doi=10.1038/nature02978 |pmid=15565153 |bibcode=2004Natur.432..499P |s2cid=4373929 |issn=1476-4687}}</ref><ref name="Jaeger-2022" />

People are sensitive to effectiveness when they or their [[Kin selection|kin]] are at stake,<ref name="Nowak-2006">{{Cite journal |last=Nowak |first=M. A. |date=2006 |title=Five rules for the evolution of cooperation |journal=Science |volume=314 |issue=5805 |pages=1560–1563 |doi=10.1126/science.1133755 |pmid=17158317 |pmc=3279745 |bibcode=2006Sci...314.1560N }}</ref> but not so much when confronted with a needy stranger.<ref name="Burum-2020" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hamilton |first=W. D. |date=September 1963 |title=The Evolution of Altruistic Behavior |url=https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/497114 |journal=The American Naturalist |language=en |volume=97 |issue=896 |pages=354–356 |doi=10.1086/497114 |s2cid=84216415 |issn=0003-0147 |via=The University of Chicago Press Journals}}</ref><ref name="Darwin-1859">{{Cite book |last=Darwin |first=C. |title=On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life |publisher=P. F. Collier & Son |year=1859}}</ref> Donors have been shown to respond to impact and efficacy when giving to themselves, but less so when donating to charity.<ref name="Burum-2020" /><ref name="Jaeger-2022" /> While cost-effectiveness information of charities tends to be hard to evaluate,<ref name="Caviola-2020">{{Cite journal |last1=Caviola |first1=Lucius |last2=Schubert |first2=Stefan |last3=Nemirow |first3=Jason |date=March 2020 |title=The many obstacles to effective giving |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/judgment-and-decision-making/article/many-obstacles-to-effective-giving/09995867756FFAF8DD73430A393C021A |journal=Judgment and Decision Making |language=en |volume=15 |issue=2 |pages=159–172 |doi=10.1017/S1930297500007312 |issn=1930-2975 |via=CambridgeCore|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Singer-2009" /> studies have shown that people are less [[Scope insensitivity|scope insensitive]] when the beneficiaries are family members.<ref name="Burum-2020" />

Throughout human evolutionary history, residing in small, tightly-knit groups has given rise to prosocial emotions and intentions towards kin and ingroup members, rather than universally extending to those outside the group boundaries.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Aktipis |first1=Athena |last2=Cronk |first2=Lee |last3=Alcock |first3=Joe |last4=Ayers |first4=Jessica D. |last5=Baciu |first5=Cristina |last6=Balliet |first6=Daniel |last7=Boddy |first7=Amy M. |last8=Curry |first8=Oliver Scott |last9=Krems |first9=Jaimie Arona |last10=Muñoz |first10=Andrés |last11=Sullivan |first11=Daniel |last12=Sznycer |first12=Daniel |last13=Wilkinson |first13=Gerald S. |last14=Winfrey |first14=Pamela |date=July 2018 |title=Understanding cooperation through fitness interdependence |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0378-4 |journal=Nature Human Behaviour |language=en |volume=2 |issue=7 |pages=429–431 |doi=10.1038/s41562-018-0378-4 |pmid=31097813 |s2cid=49667807 |issn=2397-3374|hdl=1871.1/72e0524e-788d-4f93-90f8-a6f04369a2a7 |hdl-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Greene-2013">{{Cite book |last=Greene |first=Joshua |title=Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them |publisher=Penguin Press |year=2013 |isbn=978-0-14-312605-8 |location=New York, NY |language=en}}</ref> Humans tend to exhibit [[Parochialism|parochial]] tendencies, showing concern for their [[In-group favoritism|in-groups]], but not [[In-group and out-group|out-groups]].<ref name="Jaeger-2022" /><ref name="Burum-2020" /> This parochial inclination can hinder effective altruism, especially as a significant portion of human suffering occurs in distant regions.<ref name="Singer-2009">{{Cite book |last=Singer |first=Peter |title=The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty |publisher=Random House |year=2009 |isbn=978-1-4000-6710-7 |edition=1st |location=United States |language=en}}</ref><ref name="Bloom-2017">{{Cite journal |last=Bloom |first=Paul |date=January 2017 |title=Empathy and Its Discontents |journal=Trends in Cognitive Sciences |volume=21 |issue=1 |pages=24–31 |doi=10.1016/j.tics.2016.11.004 |pmid=27916513 |s2cid=3863278 |issn=1364-6613 |via=Elsevier Science Direct}}</ref> Despite the potential impact of donations in different parts of the world, individuals in rich and developed countries often view assistance to physically distant others as less important than helping those in close proximity.<ref name="Bloom-2017" /><ref name="Jaeger-2022" /><ref name="Burum-2020" /> Contrary to maximizing impact and effectiveness with their donations, many individuals commit to donating money to local charities and organizations to which they have a personal connection, thus living by the notion of "charity begins at home"."<ref name="Berman-2018" /><ref>{{Cite web |last1=Adleberg |first1=Toni |last2=Surani |first2=Faiz |last3=GWWC |first3=Team |date=May 2021 |title=Charity begins at home; shouldn't we solve our own problems before helping others? |url=https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/blog/charity-begins-at-home-shouldnt-we-solve-our-own-problems-before-helping# |access-date=31 October 2023 |website=Giving What We Can}}</ref> Similarly, people are more inclined to help a needy child from their neighborhood rather than their city or country.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Kogut |first1=Tehila |last2=Ritov |first2=Ilana |last3=Rubaltelli |first3=Enrico |last4=Liberman |first4=Nira |date=September 2018 |title=How far is the suffering? The role of psychological distance and victims' identifiability in donation decisions |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/judgment-and-decision-making/article/how-far-is-the-suffering-the-role-of-psychological-distance-and-victims-identifiability-in-donation-decisions/72B0864A38305451E3F80CCE68D8BF72 |journal=Judgment and Decision Making |language=en |volume=13 |issue=5 |pages=458–466 |doi=10.1017/S1930297500008731 |issn=1930-2975 |viadoi-access=CambridgeCorefree |doihdl=11577/3286801 |hdl-access=free }}</ref>

People often prioritize giving to charities that align with their subjectively preferred causes.<ref name="Berman-2018">{{Cite journal |last1=Berman |first1=Jonathan Z. |last2=Barasch |first2=Alixandra |last3=Levine |first3=Emma E. |last4=Small |first4=Deborah A. |date=May 2018 |title=Impediments to Effective Altruism: The Role of Subjective Preferences in Charitable Giving |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797617747648 |journal=Psychological Science |language=en |volume=29 |issue=5 |pages=834–844 |doi=10.1177/0956797617747648 |pmid=29659341 |s2cid=4901791 |issn=0956-7976 |via=Association for Psychological Science}}</ref> Commonly, people believe charity to be a subjective decision which should not be motivated by numbers, but by care for the cause given the lack of responsibility attributed to the effects of donations.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Lerner |first1=J.S. |last2=Tetlock |first2=P.E. |date=1999 |title=Accounting for the effects of accountability |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10087938/ |journal=Psychol Bull |volume=125 |issue=2 |pages=255–275 |doi=10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255 |pmid=10087938 |via=PubMed}}</ref> This aligns with the theory of [[warm-glow giving]] originally proposed by the economist [[James Andreoni]]. According to Andreoni (1990), individuals gain satisfaction from the act of giving but are not concerned about the benefits generated by their act.<ref name="Andreoni-1990">{{Cite journal |last=Andreoni |first=James |date=1990 |title=Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. |journal=The Economic Journal |volume=100 |issue=401 |pages=464–477|doi=10.2307/2234133 |jstor=2234133 |s2cid=6001457 }}</ref><ref name="Berman-2018" />

[[Moral circle expansion]] is the concept of increasing one's number and kind of subjects deserving of moral concern over time.<ref name="Anthis-2021">{{Cite journal |last1=Anthis |first1=Jacy Reese |last2=Paez |first2=Eze |date=2021-06-01 |title=Moral circle expansion: A promising strategy to impact the far future |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328721000641 |journal=Futures |volume=130 |pages=102756 |doi=10.1016/j.futures.2021.102756 |issn=0016-3287|doi-access=free |hdl=10230/54752 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> The establishment of one's moral circle depends on spatial, biological, and temporal proximity.<ref name="Anthis-2021" /><ref name="Caviola-2021" /> For instance, many donors in [[Western Educated Industrialized Rich Democratic|WEIRD]] countries tend to favor charities that conduct work within their respective geographical boundaries.<ref name="The Science of Giving-2011" /> In terms of biological distance, people favor donating money to help humans instead of animals, even in cases when animals can have equal cognitive and suffering capacities.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Caviola |first1=Lucius |last2=Everett |first2=Jim A. C. |last3=Faber |first3=Nadira S. |date=June 2019 |title=The moral standing of animals: Towards a psychology of speciesism. |url=http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/pspp0000182 |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |language=en |volume=116 |issue=6 |pages=1011–1029 |doi=10.1037/pspp0000182 |pmid=29517258 |s2cid=3818419 |issn=1939-1315|hdl=10871/38607 |hdl-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Caviola |first1=Lucius |last2=Kahane |first2=Guy |last3=Everett |first3=Jim A. C. |last4=Teperman |first4=Elliot |last5=Savulescu |first5=Julian |last6=Faber |first6=Nadira S. |date=May 2021 |title=Utilitarianism for animals, Kantianism for people? Harming animals and humans for the greater good. |url=http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/xge0000988 |journal=Journal of Experimental Psychology: General |language=en |volume=150 |issue=5 |pages=1008–1039 |doi=10.1037/xge0000988 |pmid=33074696 |issn=1939-2222}}</ref> The idea of temporal proximity relates to people's tendency to prefer helping current generations over future ones.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Schubert |first1=Stefan |last2=Caviola |first2=Lucius |last3=Faber |first3=Nadira S. |date=2019 |title=The Psychology of Existential Risk: Moral Judgments about Human Extinction |journal=Scientific Reports |volume=9 |issue=15100 |page=15100 |doi=10.1038/s41598-019-50145-9 |pmid=31636277 |bibcode=2019NatSR...915100S |doi-access=free |pmc=6803761 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=MacAskill |first=William |title=What We Owe the Future |publisher=Basic Books |year=2022 |isbn=978-1541618626 |edition=1st |language=en}}</ref><ref name="Caviola-2021" />

[[Scope neglect]] (or ''scope insensitivity'') is the idea that people are numb to the number of victims in large, high-stake humanitarian situations.<ref>{{Cite webjournal |last=Yudkowsky |first=Eliezer |date=13 May 2007 |title=Scope Insensitivity |url=https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/2ftJ38y9SRBCBsCzy/scope-insensitivity |archive-url= |access-date=16 October 2023 |website=lesswrong.com}}</ref><ref name="Dickert-2015">{{Cite journal |last1=Dickert |first1=Stephan |last2=Västfjäll |first2=Daniel |last3=Kleber |first3=Janet |last4=Slovic |first4=Paul |date=September 2015 |title=Scope insensitivity: The limits of intuitive valuation of human lives in public policy. |journal=Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition |language=en |volume=4 |issue=3 |pages=248–255 |doi=10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.09.002 |issn=2211-369X|doi-access=free |hdl=1794/19441 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> Some research has compared this [[cognitive bias]] to the economic concept of [[diminishing marginal utility]] wherein people demonstrate a decreasing non-linear concern for individuals as the number of people increases.<ref name="Dickert-2015" />

Donors are averse to giving to charities that devote a lot of their expenses to administration<ref name="Gneezy-2014">{{Cite journal |last1=Gneezy |first1=U. |last2=Keenan |first2=E. A. |last3=Gneezy |first3=A. |date=2014-10-30 |title=Avoiding overhead aversion in charity |journal=Science |volume=346 |issue=6209 |pages=632–635 |doi=10.1126/science.1253932 |pmid=25359974 |bibcode=2014Sci...346..632G |s2cid=206557384 |issn=0036-8075}}</ref> or running costs.<ref name="Caviola-2014" /><ref name="Caviola-2020" /> Several studies have demonstrated the ubiquitous effect of [[Uri Gneezy|overhead aversion]] which is commonly attributed to people's conflation between overhead spending and charity cost-effectiveness (or impact).<ref name="Gneezy-2014" /><ref name="Caviola-2014" /><ref name="Caviola-2020" /> Furthermore, some have argued that when donors learn that a charity uses their donation to fund running costs, donors experience a diminished feeling of warm-glow,<ref name="Andreoni-1990" /> which is a significant driver of donation behavior.<ref name="Gneezy-2014" />

Intangible outcomes (such as health interventions, charity effectiveness) are hard to quantify, and many people doubt that they can every be quantified and compared.<ref name="Caviola-2021" /> However, in disciplines such as [[health economics]], health outcomes and interventions are quantified and evaluated using metrics such as [[Quality-adjusted life year|quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)]].<ref>{{Cite book |lastlast1=Banerjee |firstfirst1=Abhijit V. |title=Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty |last2=Duflo |first2=Esther |publisher=PublicAffairs |year=2011 |isbn=978-1-58648-798-0 |location=United States |language=en}}</ref> In a similar vein, [[Happiness economics|happiness economists]] have developed the concept of [[WELLBY|wellbeing-years (WELLBYs)]] which evaluates effectiveness in terms of life-years lived up to full life satisfaction.<ref>{{Cite journal |lastlast1=De Neve |firstfirst1=Jan-Emmanuel |last2=Clark |first2=Andrew E. |last3=Krekel |first3=Christian |last4=Layard |first4=Richard |last5=O’Donnell |first5=Gus |date=2020-10-05 |title=Taking a wellbeing years approach to policy choice |url=https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3853 |journal=BMJ |language=en |volume=371 |pages=m3853 |doi=10.1136/bmj.m3853 |issn=1756-1833 |pmid=33020062|s2cid=222125497 }}</ref> Put simply, a WELLBY is given by:<math display="block">WELLBY = { L \times\Delta W }</math>Where <math>L</math> is the number of lives remaining from the region's life expectancy and <math>\Delta W</math> is the change in life satisfaction expected to result from a particular action or intervention.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Treasury |first=HM |date=2021 |title=Wellbeing Guidance for Appraisal: Supplementary Green Book Guidance |url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1005388/Wellbeing_guidance_for_appraisal_-_supplementary_Green_Book_guidance.pdf |url-status=live |access-date=11 November 2023 |website=HM Treasury}}</ref> Thus, charity cost-effectiveness analyses use a number of different measures grounded in academic research to quantify their impact, allowing direct comparisons of charities that address multiple causes.<ref name="Caviola-2020" /><ref name="Caviola-2021" />

[[Category:Altruism|Effective altruism]]