Jump to content

Psychological barriers to effective altruism: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Expanded introduction, enhanced bibliography.
Evolutionary theory section, split into three sub-sections.
Line 29: Line 29:




== Evolutionary Explanation for Ineffective Altruism ==
== Evolutionary Theory of Ineffective Altruism ==
A study by academics at [[Harvard University]] and the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]] suggested that the human tendency to be altruistically ineffective can be explained through [[evolution]] and [[evolutionary game theory]].<ref name=":1" /> The article proposes that previously held views of a human incapacity to calculate impact are not generalizable. In one of their studies, they discovered that their subjects were perfectly capable to calculate impact when given the opportunity to multiply an endowment to save money for their future selves. On the other hand, when asked to do the same calculation when donating money to charity, there was no effect. The authors suggest that people respond to efficacy when giving to themselves, but less so when donating to charity.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":5">{{Cite journal |last=Jaeger |first=Bastian |last2=van Vugt |first2=Mark |date=April 2022 |title=Psychological barriers to effective altruism: An evolutionary perspective |url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.09.008 |journal=Current Opinion in Psychology |volume=44 |pages=130-134 |via=Elsevier Science Direct}}</ref>

=== Parochialism ===
Similarly, people are sensitive to effectiveness when their [[Kin selection|kin]] is at stake,<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Nowak |first=M. A. |date=2006 |title=Five rules for the evolution of cooperation |url=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1133755 |journal=Science |volume=314 |issue=5805 |pages=1560-1563 |via=Science}}</ref> but not so much when confronted with a needy stranger.<ref name=":1" /><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 |issn=0003-0147 |via=The University of Chicago Press Journals}}</ref><ref>{{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> 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 |last=Aktipis |first=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 |issn=2397-3374}}</ref><ref>{{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=":5" /><ref name=":1" />

This parochial inclination can hinder effective altruism, especially as a significant portion of human suffering occurs in distant regions.<ref>{{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>{{Cite journal |last=Bloom |first=Paul |date=2017-01 |title=Empathy and Its Discontents |url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.11.004 |journal=Trends in Cognitive Sciences |volume=21 |issue=1 |pages=24–31 |doi=10.1016/j.tics.2016.11.004 |issn=1364-6613}}</ref>


Despite the potential impact of donations abroad, individuals in affluent societies often display less empathy for the suffering of distant others [15], viewing assistance as less obligatory than helping those in close proximity [14,27,28]. Contrary to a global perspective, many individuals adhere to the notion that 'charity begins at home,' preferring local donations and contributions to organizations with personal connections [2,7]. For instance, an Italian study found increased donations to earthquake victims when participants felt a stronger connection to the affected area, such as central Italy [13]. Similarly, participants were more inclined to contribute to a child in need if described as residing in their neighborhood rather than the same city or country [13].

Additionally, parochialism introduces biases into cost-benefit evaluations relevant to effective giving. Research by Burum et al. [6] indicates that ineffective giving does not stem from a general failure to comprehend effectiveness information. Participants were willing to sacrifice more income to save five family members rather than one, yet this willingness did not differ when helping strangers, regardless of whether it would save five or one. These findings suggest that individuals can discern the impact of altruistic actions but choose not to consider it when beneficiaries are distant rather than close. Thus, parochialism limits the efficacy of altruistic acts by prioritizing close over distant others and reducing consideration of potential impacts on altruistic actions directed towards the latter.

=== Status ===

=== Conformity ===


== References ==
== References ==

Revision as of 22:31, 22 November 2023

Ineffective Altruism

Ineffective altruism is the practice of ineffective giving.[1] In general, humans are motivated to do good things in the world, whether that is through donations to charity, volunteering time for a cause, or just lending a hand to someone who needs help.[2][3] In 2022, 72% of the world's adult population donated their money, time, or helped a stranger (approximately 4.2 billion people).[2] Charitable giving is especially substantial. For instance, 2% of the GDP of the United States goes to charities - a total of $450 billion in annual donations.[4] Despite the human tendency and motivation to give and engage in altruistic behavior, research has shed light on an unequal motivation to give effectively.[1][5]

Background

In most day-to-day activities, humans prioritize efficiency; we try to minimize our costs to enjoy a positive return and weight the value we get for our money.[5][6] This line of thinking is commonplace in business and government but scant in charitable giving.[5][7]

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.[5] 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.[8]

Obstacles to Effective Giving

Motivational Obstacles

Subjectivity

People often prioritize giving to charities that align with their subjectively preferred causes.[7] 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.[9][7]

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.[10][11] 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.[11]

Epistemic Obstacles

Overhead Aversion

Evolutionary Theory of Ineffective Altruism

A study by academics at Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology suggested that the human tendency to be altruistically ineffective can be explained through evolution and evolutionary game theory.[5] The article proposes that previously held views of a human incapacity to calculate impact are not generalizable. In one of their studies, they discovered that their subjects were perfectly capable to calculate impact when given the opportunity to multiply an endowment to save money for their future selves. On the other hand, when asked to do the same calculation when donating money to charity, there was no effect. The authors suggest that people respond to efficacy when giving to themselves, but less so when donating to charity.[5][12]

Parochialism

Similarly, people are sensitive to effectiveness when their kin is at stake,[13] but not so much when confronted with a needy stranger.[5][14][15] 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.[16][17] Humans tend to exhibit parochial tendencies, showing concern for their in-groups, but not out-groups.[12][5]

This parochial inclination can hinder effective altruism, especially as a significant portion of human suffering occurs in distant regions.[18][19]


Despite the potential impact of donations abroad, individuals in affluent societies often display less empathy for the suffering of distant others [15], viewing assistance as less obligatory than helping those in close proximity [14,27,28]. Contrary to a global perspective, many individuals adhere to the notion that 'charity begins at home,' preferring local donations and contributions to organizations with personal connections [2,7]. For instance, an Italian study found increased donations to earthquake victims when participants felt a stronger connection to the affected area, such as central Italy [13]. Similarly, participants were more inclined to contribute to a child in need if described as residing in their neighborhood rather than the same city or country [13].

Additionally, parochialism introduces biases into cost-benefit evaluations relevant to effective giving. Research by Burum et al. [6] indicates that ineffective giving does not stem from a general failure to comprehend effectiveness information. Participants were willing to sacrifice more income to save five family members rather than one, yet this willingness did not differ when helping strangers, regardless of whether it would save five or one. These findings suggest that individuals can discern the impact of altruistic actions but choose not to consider it when beneficiaries are distant rather than close. Thus, parochialism limits the efficacy of altruistic acts by prioritizing close over distant others and reducing consideration of potential impacts on altruistic actions directed towards the latter.

Status

Conformity

References

  1. ^ 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.
  2. ^ a b "CAF World Giving Index 2023" (PDF). Charities Aid Foundation (CAF). 2023. Retrieved 14 November 2023.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. ^ "World Giving Index 2022: A global view of giving trends" (PDF). Charities Aid Foundation (CAF). 2022. Retrieved 10 November 2023.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  4. ^ Giving USA 2020: The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2019. Giving USA Foundation. 2020. ISBN 9780998746654.
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h 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.
  6. ^ Caviola, Lucius; Faulmüller, Nadira; Everett, Jim A. C.; Savulescu, Julian; Kahane, Guy (July 2014). "The evaluability bias in charitable giving: Saving administration costs or saving lives?". Judgment and Decision-Making. 9 (4): 303–315.
  7. ^ a b c 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.
  8. ^ 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.
  9. ^ Andreoni, James (1990). "Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving". The Economic Journal. 100 (401): 464–477.
  10. ^ Yudkowsky, Eliezer (13 May 2007). "Scope Insensitivity". lesswrong.com. Retrieved 16 October 2023.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  11. ^ 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.
  12. ^ a b Jaeger, Bastian; van Vugt, Mark (April 2022). "Psychological barriers to effective altruism: An evolutionary perspective". Current Opinion in Psychology. 44: 130–134 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  13. ^ Nowak, M. A. (2006). "Five rules for the evolution of cooperation". Science. 314 (5805): 1560–1563 – via Science.
  14. ^ Hamilton, W. D. (September 1963). "The Evolution of Altruistic Behavior". The American Naturalist. 97 (896): 354–356. doi:10.1086/497114. ISSN 0003-0147 – via The University of Chicago Press Journals.
  15. ^ Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. P. F. Collier & Son.
  16. ^ Aktipis, Athena; Cronk, Lee; Alcock, Joe; Ayers, Jessica D.; Baciu, Cristina; Balliet, Daniel; Boddy, Amy M.; Curry, Oliver Scott; Krems, Jaimie Arona; Muñoz, Andrés; Sullivan, Daniel; Sznycer, Daniel; Wilkinson, Gerald S.; Winfrey, Pamela (July 2018). "Understanding cooperation through fitness interdependence". Nature Human Behaviour. 2 (7): 429–431. doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0378-4. ISSN 2397-3374.
  17. ^ Greene, Joshua (2013). Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them. New York, NY: Penguin Press. ISBN 978-0-14-312605-8.
  18. ^ Singer, Peter (2009). The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty (1st ed.). United States: Random House. ISBN 978-1-4000-6710-7.
  19. ^ Bloom, Paul (2017-01). "Empathy and Its Discontents". Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 21 (1): 24–31. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.11.004. ISSN 1364-6613. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychological_barriers_to_effective_altruism&oldid=1186404880"