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
No edit summary
Line 38: Line 38:
=== Conformity ===
=== Conformity ===
Many living organisms have demonstrated [[conformity]],<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Boyd |first=Robert |last2=Richerson |first2=Peter J. |last3=Henrich |first3=Joseph |date=2011-06-28 |title=The cultural niche: Why social learning is essential for human adaptation |url=https://pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1100290108 |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |language=en |volume=108 |issue= |pages=10918–10925 |doi=10.1073/pnas.1100290108 |issn=0027-8424 |pmc=PMC3131818 |pmid=21690340}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Muthukrishna |first=Michael |last2=Morgan |first2=Thomas J. H. |last3=Henrich |first3=Joseph |date=2016-01-01 |title=The when and who of social learning and conformist transmission |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513815000586 |journal=Evolution and Human Behavior |volume=37 |issue=1 |pages=10–20 |doi=10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.05.004 |issn=1090-5138}}</ref> that is, the tendency to use dominant group norms (or [[descriptive norms]]) as guiding rules of behavior. Research on humans has also shown that [[Social norm|social norms]] have the power to influence what others do.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Pike |first=Thomas W. |last2=Laland |first2=Kevin N. |date=2010-08-23 |title=Conformist learning in nine-spined sticklebacks' foraging decisions |url=https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2009.1014 |journal=Biology Letters |language=en |volume=6 |issue=4 |pages=466–468 |doi=10.1098/rsbl.2009.1014 |issn=1744-9561 |pmc=PMC2936200 |pmid=20129948}}</ref> In the judgment and decision-making research, this observation has come to be known as the [[bandwagon effect]]. The power of this bias has also been demonstrated in the field of charitable giving. In fact, people have been shown to donate more, or to exhibit an increased likelihood to donate, when they perceived donating to charity as the social norm or the [[Default effect|default choice]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Everett |first=Jim A.C. |last2=Caviola |first2=Lucius |last3=Kahane |first3=Guy |last4=Savulescu |first4=Julian |last5=Faber |first5=Nadira S. |date=March 2015 |title=Doing good by doing nothing? The role of social norms in explaining default effects in altruistic contexts |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.2080 |journal=European Journal of Social Psychology |language=en |volume=45 |issue=2 |pages=230–241 |doi=10.1002/ejsp.2080 |issn=0046-2772 |via=Wiley}}</ref> Therefore, the fact that many people become increasingly in favor of donating to ineffective options, then society will see the creation of a norm for people to give ineffectively.<ref name=":5" /> As a result, people rely more strongly on their intuitions<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Croson |first=Rachel |last2=Handy |first2=Femida |last3=Shang |first3=Jen |date=June 2009 |title=Keeping up with the Joneses: The relationship of perceived descriptive social norms, social information, and charitable giving |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nml.232 |journal=Nonprofit Management and Leadership |language=en |volume=19 |issue=4 |pages=467–489 |doi=10.1002/nml.232 |issn=1048-6682}}</ref> which lead them to choosing to give ineffectively simply because they know that most others would do the same thing.<ref name=":5" />
Many living organisms have demonstrated [[conformity]],<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Boyd |first=Robert |last2=Richerson |first2=Peter J. |last3=Henrich |first3=Joseph |date=2011-06-28 |title=The cultural niche: Why social learning is essential for human adaptation |url=https://pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1100290108 |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |language=en |volume=108 |issue= |pages=10918–10925 |doi=10.1073/pnas.1100290108 |issn=0027-8424 |pmc=PMC3131818 |pmid=21690340}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Muthukrishna |first=Michael |last2=Morgan |first2=Thomas J. H. |last3=Henrich |first3=Joseph |date=2016-01-01 |title=The when and who of social learning and conformist transmission |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513815000586 |journal=Evolution and Human Behavior |volume=37 |issue=1 |pages=10–20 |doi=10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.05.004 |issn=1090-5138}}</ref> that is, the tendency to use dominant group norms (or [[descriptive norms]]) as guiding rules of behavior. Research on humans has also shown that [[Social norm|social norms]] have the power to influence what others do.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Pike |first=Thomas W. |last2=Laland |first2=Kevin N. |date=2010-08-23 |title=Conformist learning in nine-spined sticklebacks' foraging decisions |url=https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2009.1014 |journal=Biology Letters |language=en |volume=6 |issue=4 |pages=466–468 |doi=10.1098/rsbl.2009.1014 |issn=1744-9561 |pmc=PMC2936200 |pmid=20129948}}</ref> In the judgment and decision-making research, this observation has come to be known as the [[bandwagon effect]]. The power of this bias has also been demonstrated in the field of charitable giving. In fact, people have been shown to donate more, or to exhibit an increased likelihood to donate, when they perceived donating to charity as the social norm or the [[Default effect|default choice]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Everett |first=Jim A.C. |last2=Caviola |first2=Lucius |last3=Kahane |first3=Guy |last4=Savulescu |first4=Julian |last5=Faber |first5=Nadira S. |date=March 2015 |title=Doing good by doing nothing? The role of social norms in explaining default effects in altruistic contexts |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.2080 |journal=European Journal of Social Psychology |language=en |volume=45 |issue=2 |pages=230–241 |doi=10.1002/ejsp.2080 |issn=0046-2772 |via=Wiley}}</ref> Therefore, the fact that many people become increasingly in favor of donating to ineffective options, then society will see the creation of a norm for people to give ineffectively.<ref name=":5" /> As a result, people rely more strongly on their intuitions<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Croson |first=Rachel |last2=Handy |first2=Femida |last3=Shang |first3=Jen |date=June 2009 |title=Keeping up with the Joneses: The relationship of perceived descriptive social norms, social information, and charitable giving |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nml.232 |journal=Nonprofit Management and Leadership |language=en |volume=19 |issue=4 |pages=467–489 |doi=10.1002/nml.232 |issn=1048-6682}}</ref> which lead them to choosing to give ineffectively simply because they know that most others would do the same thing.<ref name=":5" />

== See also ==
{{Portal|Psychology|Society}}
{{columns-list|colwidth=22em|
* [[Altruism]]
* [[Bandwagon effect]]
* [[Charitable organization]]
* [[Charity (practice)]]
* [[Effective altruism]]
* [[Evidence-based policy]]
* [[Evolution]]
* [[List of cognitive biases]]
* [[Moral psychology]]
* [[Social preferences]]
* [[Social psychology]]
}}


== References ==
== References ==

Revision as of 01:04, 23 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, approximately 4.2 billion people donated their money, time, or helped a stranger (approximately 4.2 billion people).[2] Donating money to charity is especially substantial. For instance, 2% of the GDP of the United States goes to charitable organizations - a total of more than $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]

Terminology

The term "ineffective altruism" refers to altruistic behavior that leads to a sub-optimal outcome with a given amount of resources.[6][7] For instance, an altruistic act can be effective if the use of a set of resources saves as many lives as possible.[1][8] The term is unrelated to effective altruism as a movement, but has its origins in the ideal of effective altruism as a normative framework.

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.[6] 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][6]

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

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.[12][5] 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 evolutionary motives and game theory.[5] They argue that society rewards the act of giving but provides no motivation or incentive to give effectively. Past research suggests that altruistic motives are distorted by, among other things, parochialism, status and conformity.[13][14][12]

Parochialism

Similarly, people are sensitive to effectiveness when they or their kin are at stake,[13] but not so much when confronted with a needy stranger.[5][15][16] Donors have been shown to respond to impact and efficacy when giving to themselves, but less so when donating to charity.[5][12] In fact, while cost-effectiveness information of charities tends to be hard to evaluate,[17][18] studies have shown that people are less scope insensitive when the beneficiaries are family members.[5]

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.[19][20] 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][21] 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.[21][12][5] 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."[6][22] Similarly, people are more inclined to help a needy child from their neighborhood rather than their city or country.[23]

Status

Humans assign value to their social status within a group for survival and reproduction.[16] People tend to pursue high-status positions to enjoy benefits, such as desirable mating partners.[24] Therefore, behaviors that can produce reputational benefits are desirable to enhance one's standing in society.[25] Altruistic acts are generally viewed positively,[26] yield social rewards,[13][5] and are cumulative.[27] However, effective altruism, that is, altruistic behavior that focuses on maximizing others' welfare, is not socially rewarded.[5][28] Even though altruistic acts are viewed favorably, observers value cost-minimization for the person committing the altruistic act more than the benefits of the receiver.[29] In fact, evidence-based reasoning in charitable giving is perceived negatively, amoral, and reduces a person's likability.[30] Some have even argued that the reputational costs incurred for engaging in effective giving explain people's aversion to prioritizing some causes over more impactful ones.[1]

Conformity

Many living organisms have demonstrated conformity,[31][32] that is, the tendency to use dominant group norms (or descriptive norms) as guiding rules of behavior. Research on humans has also shown that social norms have the power to influence what others do.[33] In the judgment and decision-making research, this observation has come to be known as the bandwagon effect. The power of this bias has also been demonstrated in the field of charitable giving. In fact, people have been shown to donate more, or to exhibit an increased likelihood to donate, when they perceived donating to charity as the social norm or the default choice.[34] Therefore, the fact that many people become increasingly in favor of donating to ineffective options, then society will see the creation of a norm for people to give ineffectively.[12] As a result, people rely more strongly on their intuitions[35] which lead them to choosing to give ineffectively simply because they know that most others would do the same thing.[12]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d 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 i j k 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. ^ a b c d 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.
  7. ^ "What is effective altruism? | Effective Altruism". www.effectivealtruism.org. Retrieved 2023-11-23.
  8. ^ a b 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 c d e f g 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. ^ a b c Nowak, M. A. (2006). "Five rules for the evolution of cooperation". Science. 314 (5805): 1560–1563 – via Science.
  14. ^ Panchanathan, Karthik; Boyd, Robert (November 2004). "Indirect reciprocity can stabilize cooperation without the second-order free rider problem". Nature. 432 (7016): 499–502. doi:10.1038/nature02978. ISSN 1476-4687.
  15. ^ 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.
  16. ^ a b 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.
  17. ^ Caviola, Lucius; Schubert, Stefan; Nemirow, Jason (March 2020). "The many obstacles to effective giving". Judgment and Decision Making. 15 (2): 159–172. doi:10.1017/S1930297500007312. ISSN 1930-2975 – via CambridgeCore.
  18. ^ a b 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. ^ 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.
  20. ^ 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.
  21. ^ a b Bloom, Paul (January 2017). "Empathy and Its Discontents". Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 21 (1): 24–31. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.11.004. ISSN 1364-6613 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  22. ^ Adleberg, Toni; Surani, Faiz; GWWC, Team (May 2021). "Charity begins at home; shouldn't we solve our own problems before helping others?". Giving What We Can. Retrieved 31 October 2023.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  23. ^ Kogut, Tehila; Ritov, Ilana; Rubaltelli, Enrico; Liberman, Nira (September 2018). "How far is the suffering? The role of psychological distance and victims' identifiability in donation decisions". Judgment and Decision Making. 13 (5): 458–466. doi:10.1017/S1930297500008731. ISSN 1930-2975 – via CambridgeCore.
  24. ^ von Rueden, Christopher R.; Jaeggi, Adrian V. (2016-09-27). "Men's status and reproductive success in 33 nonindustrial societies: Effects of subsistence, marriage system, and reproductive strategy". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 113 (39): 10824–10829. doi:10.1073/pnas.1606800113. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 5047206. PMID 27601650.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link)
  25. ^ Schaller, Mark; Kenrick, Douglas T.; Neel, Rebecca; Neuberg, Steven L. (June 2017). "Evolution and human motivation: A fundamental motives framework". Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 11 (6). doi:10.1111/spc3.12319. ISSN 1751-9004 – via Wiley.
  26. ^ Durkee, Patrick K.; Lukaszewski, Aaron W.; Buss, David M. (September 2020). "Psychological foundations of human status allocation". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 117 (35): 21235–21241. doi:10.1073/pnas.2006148117. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 7474695. PMID 32817486 – via PNAS.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link)
  27. ^ Ashraf, Nava; Bandiera, Oriana (May 2017). "Altruistic Capital". American Economic Review. 107 (5): 70–75. doi:10.1257/aer.p20171097. ISSN 0002-8282 – via American Economic Association.
  28. ^ Yudkin, Daniel A.; Prosser, Annayah M. B.; Crockett, Molly J. (October 2019). "Actions speak louder than outcomes in judgments of prosocial behavior". Emotion. 19 (7): 1138–1147. doi:10.1037/emo0000514. ISSN 1931-1516.
  29. ^ Kawamura, Yuta; Ohtsubo, Yohsuke; Kusumi, Takashi (May 2021). "Effects of Cost and Benefit of Prosocial Behavior on Reputation". Social Psychological and Personality Science. 12 (4): 452–460. doi:10.1177/1948550620929163. ISSN 1948-5506.
  30. ^ Montealegre, Andres; Bush, Lance; Moss, David; Pizarro, David; Jimenez-Leal, William (2023). "Does Maximizing Good Make People Look Bad?". osf.io. Retrieved 2023-11-22.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  31. ^ Boyd, Robert; Richerson, Peter J.; Henrich, Joseph (2011-06-28). "The cultural niche: Why social learning is essential for human adaptation". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108: 10918–10925. doi:10.1073/pnas.1100290108. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 3131818. PMID 21690340.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link)
  32. ^ Muthukrishna, Michael; Morgan, Thomas J. H.; Henrich, Joseph (2016-01-01). "The when and who of social learning and conformist transmission". Evolution and Human Behavior. 37 (1): 10–20. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.05.004. ISSN 1090-5138.
  33. ^ Pike, Thomas W.; Laland, Kevin N. (2010-08-23). "Conformist learning in nine-spined sticklebacks' foraging decisions". Biology Letters. 6 (4): 466–468. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2009.1014. ISSN 1744-9561. PMC 2936200. PMID 20129948.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link)
  34. ^ Everett, Jim A.C.; Caviola, Lucius; Kahane, Guy; Savulescu, Julian; Faber, Nadira S. (March 2015). "Doing good by doing nothing? The role of social norms in explaining default effects in altruistic contexts". European Journal of Social Psychology. 45 (2): 230–241. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2080. ISSN 0046-2772 – via Wiley.
  35. ^ Croson, Rachel; Handy, Femida; Shang, Jen (June 2009). "Keeping up with the Joneses: The relationship of perceived descriptive social norms, social information, and charitable giving". Nonprofit Management and Leadership. 19 (4): 467–489. doi:10.1002/nml.232. ISSN 1048-6682.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychological_barriers_to_effective_altruism&oldid=1186420693"