Why We Donate: How Culture Influences Our Charity


Last Updated: April 28th, 2021

Untitled design (8)






We Donate When We Have to Suffer for It

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis is a progressive disease that degrades the nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord. Also known as Lou Gehrig's Disease or ALS for short, this disease afflicts at least 20,000 Americans at any given time. And no one really cared or knew about it -

- until this happened:


According to some research, no. In the book "The Science of Giving," author and researcher Chris Olivola and his team studied the effects of discomfort on charitable donations. In one study featured in the book, two groups of people were given $5 per person, then told they would be able to donate any portion of that money toward what amounted to a charity. One group, however, was given an additional requirement before they could donate: they had to stick their hands in ice-cold water for a full minute before making their decision. Surprisingly, the control group (who didn't have to stick their hands in the water) gave an average of $3, while the experimental group gave an average of $4.

Something about suffering changes our willingness to share. Maybe for some, it lends perspective, allowing them to empathize in some small, superficial way to the people their dollars are helping. Maybe it creates a contrast of pain - after experiencing something physically unpleasant, donating a few dollars is considerably less painful. Regardless of the mechanics, when we are invited to undergo some kind of discomfort before we can donate, something in our brain's arousal center fires, and we quickly become a lot more willing.

We Donate When We Know the Individual




As awful as it may sound, the sheer number of people whose lives have been drastically changed or cut short has little effect when compared with getting to know the story of one individual. Need proof? Within 24 hours of the Aylan Kurdi photos making their way to the public, regular, otherwise uninterested people donated over $275,000 to a single relief group dedicated to rescuing migrants stranded at sea. Whether it's somebody that we know personally or someone whose story we've internalized, something about that one-to-one relationship is crucial to us as humans.

Even when an individual directly asks us to donate, we have the need to say yes. Have you ever been at a checkout stand at the grocery store, and the employee will ask if you'd like to donate a small amount to some charity? If you're like most people, you hesitate before saying no, or you awkwardly say "yes." Some researchers believe this comes from a subconscious desire to ward off fate - that if we say "no," we are somehow increasingly our likelihood of developing the alluded-to affliction, or by saying "yes" we are accumulating good karma. In either case, the direct question makes us feel accountable to one person, and therefore more motivated to act.

We Donate When Someone Else Has Donated

At the beginning of this post, I mentioned that famed author J. K. Rowling had not only donated to the European Migration Crisis relief, but had also encouraged her Twitter followers to do the same. How effective do you think her advocacy for the refugees would be if she hadn't donated, and that fact became known? Now, before you start lighting your torches, let me assure you that Rowling has indeed donated and continues to be one of the most outspoken advocates for refugee relief. But think about your reaction when you considered that she hadn't donated? Well, just as we're less likely to donate if nobody we know or nobody we care about has, we're more likely to donate when we know someone else has.

This concept gets at the idea behind why celebrity endorsements are one of the most convincing marketing tactics used today. We know, deep down, that most celebrities are probably being paid for their endorsement, however there's no denying the influence celebrities have on our culture. Take the following story from recent news as an example:

Earlier this week, NBA star James Harden was photographed wearing a pair of Air Jordans. Why did this make the news? Because last month, Harden, who had previously been a spokesman for Nike (maker of the Air Jordan tennis shoe), signed a $200 million contract to represent Adidas, one of Nike's top competitors. So you see the conflict here: a public figure who has publicly declared his support for a widely recognized brand was caught in a candid moment representing that brand's chief rival:

Did this mistake have any effect? Perhaps not. But when you look at the daily stock projections of the two companies during the day the photo surfaced (September 14, 2015), and the days following, you'll notice a slight difference between the two:


As the news about James Harden's choice of footwear unfolded, Nike saw a somewhat uninterrupted increase in stock, which peaked midday of September 15th.


Meanwhile, Adidas saw a different result for September 15th, a noticeable drop immediately following the James Harden news, which was then righted on September 16th with the news that Harden would be required to wear Adidas whenever he is in public. Now, this isn't to suggest that one person's contract faux pas can account for any significant change in the success of two multi-billion-dollar companies. But let's be honest: if you're a huge James Harden fan, aren't you more inclined to buy Nike instead of Adidas? When people we know, or people who influence us (like celebrities) are donating to a cause, we are so much more likely to do so. It's the geometric law of transitivity: I trust James Harden. James Harden trusts Nike. I trust Nike. Not to say that buying a Nike shoe is equivalent to donating to charity, but the principle is the same.

The same holds true when it comes to people that we actually know, or people in our immediate vicinity. Remember, the "challenge" portion of the #ALSIceBucketChallenge? It normally comes from someone you know. And many times, you may not even care about the charity in question as much as the person advocating it. You can't tell me your parents bought all those chocolate bars so your band could go to band camp because they loved the candy bars.

We Donate When It's Publicized

Economists and social scientists always talk about the seemingly contrasting values of virtue and self-interest. "Virtue" meaning altruism (giving something for nothing), and self-interest meaning giving something to get something. These values are also known as public and private benefit respectively. When it comes to donating to charity, which value wins out? On the surface, it's public benefit, altruism; you're literally giving your money with no expectation of compensation. But is that really true? Going back to our example of the #ALSIceBucketChallenge, is there any benefit for the person who dumps a bucket of ice water on himself?

On the outermost level, it's an opportunity to literally show off to our friends. Despite our best intentions, the genius behind the challenge is the chance to show everyone just how tough, crazy, wimpy, creative, whatever you are. Yes, we get the warm, fuzzy feeling that we are contributing to a righteous cause, but the #ALSIceBucketChallenge wouldn't have been nearly as successful were it not for its strong social media component. And while you and I probably looked at it as an opportunity to get a few more hits on YouTube and to publicly call out our friends, public figures saw a huge goodwill opportunity. Think of one of your favorite celebrity ice bucket moments. Was it Bill Gates? LeBron James? Don't get me wrong: both men are major humanitarian advocates, from The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to James's recent scholarship program at the University of Akron. But had the #ALSIceBucketChallenge not been a publicized exercise, the likelihood of their donating to ALS might easily have been affected (though, at this point, who's to say?).


Remember the LiveStrong movement? Those cheaply made yellow rubber bracelets? Before the imminent collapse of Lance Armstrong's empire of influence, wearing a LiveStrong bracelet was nothing short of a status symbol.


My advice? If you do want to donate, take a close, close look at the charity or non-profit you're sending your money to. One of the most tragic stories to unfold out of any national or international disaster is when good honest people who want to help are duped by false charities who are looking to profit from others' misfortunes. Perhaps, the various reasons why we donate don't really even matter - any time you donate to a worthy cause is a good time to do so. The actual motivational factors behind why we donate are far more complex than the reasons laid out in this post, but they could explain why you still probably haven't donated to your public radio station.

Top of Page chevron_right

Compare Top Companies

Was this content helpful?
thumb_up Yes thumb_down No

The Top Charities Companies

Related Articles

Get Our Newsletter – Be in the Know

Sign up below to receive a monthly newsletter containing relevant news, resources and expert tips on Charities and other products and services.


