Psychological barriers to effective altruism: Difference between revisions
Glenwspiteri (talk | contribs) |
Glenwspiteri (talk | contribs) →The Paradox of Ineffective Giving: New citation, financial decision-making vs. charitable decision-making |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
== The Paradox of Ineffective Giving == |
== The Paradox of Ineffective Giving == |
||
We are motivated to give, but not motivated to give effectively.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last=Burum |first=Bethany |last2=Nowak |first2=Martin A. |last3=Hoffman |first3=Moshe |date=December 2020 |title=An evolutionary explanation for ineffective altruism |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-00950-4 |journal=Nature Human Behaviour |language=en |volume=4 |issue=12 |pages=1245–1257 |doi=10.1038/s41562-020-00950-4 |issn=2397-3374}}</ref> |
We are motivated to give, but not motivated to give effectively.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last=Burum |first=Bethany |last2=Nowak |first2=Martin A. |last3=Hoffman |first3=Moshe |date=December 2020 |title=An evolutionary explanation for ineffective altruism |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-00950-4 |journal=Nature Human Behaviour |language=en |volume=4 |issue=12 |pages=1245–1257 |doi=10.1038/s41562-020-00950-4 |issn=2397-3374}}</ref> In financial decision-making, investors prioritize portfolio allocation decisions that would maximize their return, however, when it comes to charitable decision-making, donors prioritize maximizing charity revenues over maximizing impact per unit of money donated.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Lewis |first=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> |
||
== Obstacles to Effective Giving == |
== Obstacles to Effective Giving == |
||
Revision as of 18:44, 20 October 2023
 | This template is not to be used in article space. This is the sandbox page where you will draft your initial Wikipedia contribution. If you're starting a new article, you can develop it here until it's ready to go live. If you're working on improvements to an existing article, copy only one section at a time of the article to this sandbox to work on, and be sure to use an edit summary linking to the article you copied from. Do not copy over the entire article. You can find additional instructions here. Remember to save your work regularly using the "Publish page" button. (It just means 'save'; it will still be in the sandbox.) You can add bold formatting to your additions to differentiate them from existing content. |
Ineffective Altruism
Ineffective altruism is the practice of ineffective giving.[1] It contrasts with effective altruism, which is defined as "a philosophy and social movement that advocates using the most effective, evidence-based strategies to benefit others."[1]
Background
Talk about the evolutionary approach.[2]
Talk about effective altruism.
Talk about the significance of charitable giving globally.
The Paradox of Ineffective Giving
We are motivated to give, but not motivated to give effectively.[2] In financial decision-making, investors prioritize portfolio allocation decisions that would maximize their return, however, when it comes to charitable decision-making, donors prioritize maximizing charity revenues over maximizing impact per unit of money donated.[3]
Obstacles to Effective Giving
Motivational Obstacles
Subjectivity
People often prioritize giving to charities that align with their subjectively preferred causes.[4] Commonly, people believe charity to be a subjective decision which should not be motivated by numbers, but by care for the cause. 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.[5][4]
Narrow Moral Circle
Scope Neglect (Insensitivity)
Scope neglect (or scope insensitivity) is the idea that people are numb to the number of victims in large, high-stake humanitarian situations.[6][7] 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.[7]
Epistemic Obstacles
Overhead Aversion
References
- ^ a b Caviola, Lucius; Schubert, Stefan; Greene, Joshua D. (July 2021). "The Psychology of (In)Effective Altruism". Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 25 (7): 596–607. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2021.03.015. ISSN 1364-6613.
- ^ a b Burum, Bethany; Nowak, Martin A.; Hoffman, Moshe (December 2020). "An evolutionary explanation for ineffective altruism". Nature Human Behaviour. 4 (12): 1245–1257. doi:10.1038/s41562-020-00950-4. ISSN 2397-3374.
- ^ Lewis, Joshua; Small, Deborah (2018). Gershoff, Andrew; Kozinets, Robert; White, Tiffany (eds.). "Ineffective Altruism: Giving Less When Donations Do More". NA - Advances in Consumer Research. 46. Duluth, Minnesota: Association for Consumer Research: 194–198.
- ^ a b Berman, Jonathan Z.; Barasch, Alixandra; Levine, Emma E.; Small, Deborah A. (May 2018). "Impediments to Effective Altruism: The Role of Subjective Preferences in Charitable Giving". Psychological Science. 29 (5): 834–844. doi:10.1177/0956797617747648. ISSN 0956-7976 – via Association for Psychological Science.
- ^ Andreoni, James (1990). "Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving". The Economic Journal. 100 (401): 464–477.
- ^ Yudkowsky, Eliezer (13 May 2007). "Scope Insensitivity". lesswrong.com. Retrieved 16 October 2023.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ a b Dickert, Stephan; Västfjäll, Daniel; Kleber, Janet; Slovic, Paul (September 2015). "Scope insensitivity: The limits of intuitive valuation of human lives in public policy". Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 4 (3): 248–255. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.09.002. ISSN 2211-369X.