Stay up to date with Giving What We Can's blog. Featuring the latest news about our community, how to donate effectively, charity evaluation, community events and more!

Blog

Giving What We Can's blog, featuring the latest news from our community.

footerNavigation

About us

Contact us

Our team

Our values

Our members

Our events

Transparency

Our mistakes

Our impact

Donate to Giving What We Can

Careers

About

Our best charities

Take a giving pledge

Get involved

Make a bequest

Videos, books, podcasts

FAQs

Sitemap

Learn more

Press kit

Media coverage

Case studies: People who pledge to give

Media

Footer Navigation

topNavigation

Best charities

High-impact causes

Why give to funds

How much to donate

Why donate publicly

Recommendations

Our research & approach

Comparing charities

Evaluating evaluators

Our approach

Giving guides

Videos, books, podcasts and essays

Hesitations about charitable giving

How rich am I?

Can money buy happiness?

Resources

Research

Team

Newsletter

Podcast

Videos

Take the Pledge

Connect with our community

Share our ideas

Events

Giving games

Charity elections

Pledge drive

Fundraisers

Community

Take the pledge

My pledge

Trial Pledge

Company Pledge

Further Pledge

Bequests

Why Pledge

Pledge

Donate now

Manage my donations

Tax deductibility

Donate

Top Navigation

Julian Hazell

Instead of relying on heuristics to donate, slow down your thinking so you can be scrutinous about where your donations end up. A few hours of research can help you make more informed choices so your generosity can be even more effective at creating good in the world.

The behavioural science of donating to charity: Why we sometimes fail to do the most good we can, and what can be done about it

We overeat even though we would like to be fit and healthy (I'm currently writing this article with a pint of Ben & Jerry's half baked ice cream sitting next to me), we smoke cigarettes even though we know that doing so is bad for our lungs, and we fail to save even though we wish to go on holidays and spoil our grandchildren when we retire.

Sometimes we do irrational things because we are susceptible to cognitive biases, which describe the mental processes that cause us to arrive at outcomes contrary to what standard logic would typically predict. One such bias is 

 --- the reason why losing $100 feels about twice as bad as the equivalent happiness we feel from finding $100. Another is 

, which describes why we tend to leave things as they are even if the default option might not be the right choice (think of leaving the "yes you can send me promotional emails" box checked even though you know that the emails will probably annoy you later on).

Biases are sometimes by-products of heuristics --- ways in which we simplify complicated problems so we can reach satisfactory results quicker than if we spend all day mulling over our options and calculating the probabilities involved.

Here's a semi-ridiculous example of a heuristic: Imagine someone places a yellow plate in front of you with some unrecognizable food on it. How would you figure out if the food is going to taste good? You could feel it with your hands (not recommended), smell it, compare it to images on Google, ask a friend, take a sample of it to chemically analyze, post a picture of it on Reddit, spend hours thinking about similar foods you've eaten --- or you could just employ the 'well my mom used yellow plates when I was a kid and she's a pretty good cook' heuristic to save time. That might work 99% of the time. If you're eating at home, it becomes a no-brainer. When you see a yellow plate of food, it simply isn't worth the mental energy to worry about. Just dig in! But what would happen if I put a bunch of worms on a yellow plate and put it in front of you? You might start chowing down if your brain uses this shortcut, leading to an obviously bad outcome (the effectiveness of this vignette is based on the assumption that you do not like eating worms). See what I'm getting at?

You're now probably wondering why we use heuristics if they can sometimes lead to bad outcomes. The reason is that 

heuristics may indeed have evolutionary origins

 and are sometimes very useful for decision-making. In this sense, they're features, not bugs. Even though these mental shortcuts might've kept us alive hundreds of thousands of years ago when quick decisions were needed to make sure we didn't starve to death or get eaten by larger, hungrier animals, heuristics can lead us astray now that we have access to Uber Eats and grocery stores.

The same logic applies when we make decisions about how much to donate and who should receive it. Thousands of years ago, it was probably okay to look around at our small social circles to decide who is deserving of our altruism. But now that we have the internet, we can send resources to those in need with a few mouse clicks and 23 or so taps of a keyboard. Yet our modern brains, and the heuristics that come with them, are still the same as they were thousands of years ago --- at least physiologically. Because of this, many still choose not to donate at all, or only to charities they're familiar with regardless of how effective those organizations might be. This is a problem that heuristics are ill-equipped to solve.

One heuristic seems to be dangerously common in the world of charitable giving: 

, which describes our tendency to use information that easily comes to mind when making decisions. The availability heuristic is why watching a news segment containing footage of a fiery plane crash might cause you to overrate the odds of getting in a similar plane crash, or why watching Jaws might cause you to similarly overrate the chances you get eaten by a shark the next time you go for a swim.

Charities that we only recently learned about or ones that we frequently hear about on social media might be easier for our brains to recall, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're better to donate to. By definition, charities are tasked with solving difficult problems that sometimes call for unintuitive solutions that only become clear after rigorous testing (if this wasn't the case, we hopefully would've solved these problems by now). Donating solely based on what comes to mind might cause us to exclude charities that we haven't heard of --- ones that can be highly effective at creating good in the world, and ones that are in need of our generosity.

It almost goes without saying that some of the things we can't see with our eyes are incredibly important (you're breathing in one of these things right now, actually). Since I don't own a microscope, I've never seen a SARS-CoV2 particle with my own eyes. Does that mean COVID-19 isn't a threat? I've personally never been to Sub-Saharan Africa. Does that mean there aren't important charities operating there that could use my donations?

To truly do the most good we can with our donations, we need to think beyond the things we see with our eyes by expanding our boundaries of moral concern to those who don't 

, speak like us, or live near us (or those who 

). Home-country bias --- which describes how investors tend to prefer investing in stocks within their home countries even if doing so leads to unbalanced portfolios --- shows how bad outcomes can occur if we focus only on what is familiar or close to us. Why do we sometimes do the same with charity, especially when a dollar goes 

significantly further in low-income countries

It seems foolish that familiarity causes the average US investor to 

park over 70% of their portfolio in US equities

 even though the US accounts for about half of the world's total stocks. The same kind of familiarity-driven thinking can explain why only 

 made by Americans in 2018 went abroad to other countries, which is about 

 the entire country spent on pizza that same year.

Something as important as preventing the suffering of other human beings requires us to make better decisions --- and if we spend twice as much on pizza as we do on helping those in dire situations, we're currently in bad shape. Indeed, heuristics may not be the right answer for charitable decision making.

All is not gloom and doom. Instead of relying on heuristics to donate, slow down your thinking so you can be scrutinous about where your donations end up. Often, the most intuitive answers that quickly come to mind are incorrect. A few hours of research can help you make more informed choices so your generosity can be even more effective at creating good in the world. I encourage you to think deeply about whether there are other charitable organizations out there that might be more effective at helping others than the ones you typically donate to. That way, you can be more confident that the availability heuristic and other pesky biases aren't interfering with your ability to do the most good you can. Beyond this introspection, here are some practical tips for being more effective with your charitable giving:

, which has a wealth of information about specific donation recommendations and effective giving more generally.

 calculator to gain a more concrete perspective as to how much good you can do in the world with your earnings.

Remember that human beings make up the statistical numbers behind cost-effectiveness calculations --- people just like ourselves, all who have best friends, family members, hobbies, plans, hopes, and dreams. Next time you see a statistic on charitable giving, take a few minutes to unpack who it represents by trying to visualize an individual in your head.

A useful heuristic for charitable decision making is to base your giving on research done by others who are knowledgeable about highly effective charities. For example, you could:  

Check out prominent charity evaluators such as 

Reach out directly to knowledgeable folks in the 

 community to learn where they donate to and what helped them decide. Once you've identified a few promising --- and highly effective --- charities, consider making a 

Luke Freeman

Don't ever forget that social change is a marathon. Something that seems old to you is just reaching the point of acceptability for the masses. It's the time when endurance is most needed.

How does change happen? The power of social proof in behaviour change & successful movement growth

Most of us think that the world would be much better if other people changed their behaviour. We might wish others would treat people more kindly, give more to charity, or be more informed voters.

Yet we often neglect to recognise how important our own behaviour is in bringing about these changes.

Humans are incredibly social animals. We do what we see others doing. Not only is this backed up by a lot of scientific evidence, we even have many aphorisms in common parlance that reflect this truth. For example:

“Change happens... one person at a time."

"If not me, then who? If not now, then when?"

"Be the change you want to see in the world."

Some find these adages inspiring, and others might find them cheesy. Personally, I think it’s important to reflect on them, let them sink in, and deeply internalise.

They point to a simple truth that is essential to making the world better: our behaviour influences what other people will do. What we do matters, not just because of the direct outcomes but also because of how it influences other people.

In psychology and sociology this idea has been formalised by the phenomena of social proof and social norms.

The psychological and social phenomenon of 

 shows how people copy the behaviour of others. People are more likely to do things if they see others doing it. The term was coined by Robert Cialdini in his 1984 book "

" and is commonly used in marketing (e.g. reviews on websites, celebrity endorsements).

One of my favourite videos about how social proof relates to social change is the "first follower" video, popularised by 

It demonstrates the power of being an early adopter who's willing to take risks. You de-risk and normalise the path forward for others:

"As more people join in, it's less risky. So those that were sitting on the fence before now have no reason not to. They won't stand out, they won't be ridiculed, but they will be part of the in-crowd if they hurry. "

 take the idea of social proof a step further, into the territory of what is considered normal or acceptable behaviour. It is what we think is expected of us -- it's what a "good person" within a community is expected to do. This representation is shaped by what we believe most people are doing or thinking.

" by Cass Sunstein. Sunstein focuses on the crucial role of social norms and how nudging people in one direction can result in a social cascade.

Creating social cascades require us to take a risk. Publicly revealing our preferences can be scary, and occasionally costly. However, these fears are often overblown. The personal consequences are rarely as negative as we expect, and more often than not, they are positive.

 (GWWC) community is an excellent example of using these ideas to create change.

GWWC members make public commitments to donate a portion of their incomes to the most effective charities.

Many people can make an extraordinary impact in the world by donating to effective charities, but why go further and make a public pledge?

The theory is that if we want other people to value compassion for others and a commitment to impact then we can speed up the process by taking the first step ourselves (and doing it publicly).

Remember here that "other people" aren't just individuals -- they are also part of our governments, philanthropists, and companies. The world is made up of individual people who respond to social norms. What we do and say really matters, and it has flow-on effects on those around us, and to the rest of the world.

Social proof is one of the most significant factors in both awareness (helping people know about something) and aspiration (helping them want it for themselves). It even plays a role in accessibility (once something is normalised, it is often made more accessible).

In this 80,000 Hours interview, Cass Sunstein gives a great example

"I'll give you a little study from Saudi Arabia, which is that Saudi men, by custom, have authority over whether their wives work outside the home. Most young Saudi men actually think it's fine that their wives work outside of the home, but most young Saudi men think that most other young Saudi men think it's not fine. They think they're isolated in their openness to wives working outside of the home.
In the experiment, once Saudi men were informed that most Saudi men actually think like them, then the number of Saudi women applying to join the workforce grew dramatically four months later. That was a research study, not a feminist program. There's a clue there about programs of all sorts."

In this example, it was the silence of the majority that was leading to a world that they didn't want.

You've probably noticed a phenomenon playing out in the real world where social norms can feel like they change rapidly. First, a small number of people support an idea, it seems to simmer for a while, and you almost forget about it. Suddenly it seems like it's ubiquitous.

For all the years I worked in startups, the 

 was always front of mind. Getting your user base beyond just a few very early innovators to the group of early adopters was key -- then you'd be well on your way to the majority.

Suppose you are someone who gets in at the innovators' stage of the adoption lifecycle. In that case, you'll feel like it's taking forever. You'll feel like you've been shouting at everyone with no success. You'll start to think it'll never take off.

But then something happens, and before you know it, it's a success. Not as fast as you initially thought, but much quicker than you were starting to worry.

This pattern has played out in many social changes from same sex marriage, to gender equality and more

"When opinions start to change, the change takes up increasing speed toward a much more even division. That is when the topic becomes socially and politically divisive. A majority forms around a new consensus and the pace of change slows again as the most committed supporters of the old view reluctantly come around; some never do. Researchers call this pattern the S-curve or, more properly, the sigmoid."

The reality is we're all active agents in the world. We can all 

 the world towards the world that we want, or sit back and be nudged.

The trap for those who get in early is to get tired.

Advocacy is a way that we can all multiply our impact. For every person that follows our lead, we are multiplying our impact and making it easier for the next person.

What change do you want to see in the world? And, more importantly, what are you going to do about it?

If you're someone who wants to inspire donations to the world's most effective organisations we encourage you to 

start advocating for effective giving (try these simple, easy advocacy ideas!)

The psychology behind why people don't speak out against, and even defend, norms they secretly despise

Alexandra Berlina

"If spending money... can improve my life only marginally, and someone else's life considerably... then it makes more sense to spend it on someone else. I couldn't live with myself if I did nothing."

"...it's crucial to give effectively, so that the money does the most good it can..."

"Don't be shy about spreading the word. I sign off emails with 'I donate 20% of my income to effective charity' -- and I've recently learned that one of my clients took the pledge, too."


Member Profile: Alexandra Berlina

When my husband Pavel and I we were students, money tended to run out by the end of the month; then we began supplementing our scholarship money with freelance translation and interpreting, and suddenly we had a bit more money than we needed.

The feeling was pleasant, but it also made me itchy -- it didn't seem fair to spend money on a cappuccino when I knew that the same tiny sum could help an ill child get better somewhere. 

(Argh, it's so hard to talk about these things without sounding terribly mauve and banal!)

For quite a while I made myself crazy, sometimes donating all we had and sometimes very little. Pavel was always a balancing influence, and finally we decided that we could spare 20% of our income. It was truly liberating not to reconsider how much to donate and where all the time but to have made a decision and stick with it -- though sometimes I still think it's too little and make a small additional donation to some particular cause.

It's just math, really: if spending, say, 10 € can improve my life only marginally, and someone else's life considerably -- or even save it, for instance, by ridding a child of worms and strengthening their immune system -- then it makes more sense to spend it on someone else. I couldn't live with myself if I did nothing.

Besides, I have it really easy: adopting a traumatized child, say, is incomparable to merely giving away some money; what we do is the simple thing. And we hardly deny ourselves anything, the kids get the books and games they want, and we don't live on bread and water.

It's not hard to give -- it's hard not to. Actually, you can say giving is an egoistic instinct: when I get depressed, I can always tell myself "at least I'm of some use to others -- even to some people I don't know," and this really helps.

Why did you take the Giving What We Can pledge?

 I was so happy to see there are other people out there who feel like I do -- most of my friends don't, and it makes me feel rather strange sometimes.

Plus, I think it's good to shout out into the world what we do, modesty be damned: 

What are the issues in the world that you care most deeply about?

Children pull at my heartstrings, and these things seem obvious enough: No child should die whom today's medicine can save. No child should be mutilated. No child should be denied education. 

Most people who live in high-income countries make enough money to make a difference

When I donate additionally and spontaneously, it usually concerns children, especially girls. But it's crucial to give effectively, so that the money does the most good it can, so I try not to get side-tracked by particular stories too much.

Which organizations do you give to (and why)?

Pavel and I spread 20% of income over SOS Children's Villages, Doctors without Borders and whatever is deemed 

most effective by current charity evaluations

We're both freelancers, so there is no pension fund, and we do have to save a bit. We'll have to see if we can manage the usual 20% this year when our income has suffered from COVID-19 (I hope we can). What I find actually hard is not giving but talking about giving without sounding like an insufferable do-goody. But you can't let people die for stylistic reasons, can you?

Do you try to effect change in any other way?

My husband and I are still only pescatarians; veganism or even vegetarianism is difficult with kids -- but as soon as there's affordable milk and meat from the test tube, we'll be buying it. We have no car. I've considered volunteering at a charity, but working more and giving more appears more effective. My husband Pavel is a member of the party 

What effective giving tips would you like to share?

Don't be shy about spreading the word. I sign off with 'I donate 20% of my income to effective charity' -- and I've recently learned that one of my clients took the pledge, too.

What suggestions do you have for other people considering the pledge?

Have any books or documentaries or articles or studies significantly changed the way you see giving?

Not original, but it must be named: "The Life You Can Save" is a must-read, and it's currently available as a 

Tell us a bit more about yourself, what keeps you busy, what makes you tick.

After a stint in academia, I became a freelance translator and interpreter -- mostly into English, but my most recent book translation was a new German version of the Russian classic "The Master and Margarita." I've always loved reading, and translation is the closest form of reading there is, so I'm immensely lucky in my work -- which is one of the reasons why I think I should share.

I live with my two kids and my husband Pavel in Düsseldorf. He was my first boyfriend and does double duty as my translation partner (we share the site 

). He, too, originally comes from Moscow; he, too, thinks that atheism does not liberate one from moral obligations, but quite the other way around. (Sometimes I suspect we're twins.) We made the decision to donate 20% of our shared income together a few years ago.

" series which profiles a selection of the Giving What We Can community. The Giving What We Can is a community of people from all walks of life, with different perspectives and motivations for giving -- all united by their desire to make a significant commitment to use their income to effectively helping others. Read more 

 to help inspire others to give more, and more effectively.

For more information about Giving What We Can we recommend you check out our 

"If spending money... can improve my life only marginally, and someone else's life considerably... then it makes more sense to spend it on someone else. I couldn't live with myself if I did nothing."

"...it's crucial to give effectively, so that the money does the most good it can..."

"Don't be shy about spreading the word. I sign off emails with 'I donate 20% of my income to effective charity' -- and I've recently learned that one of my clients took the pledge, too."

 Dominika Krupocin

Heather Heckman

"I'm fortunate by accident of birth that I'm born European and I've got a decent income, and all the rest of it that we get through living in Europe. Huge numbers of people haven't had this luck and it's just very unfair. There's huge inequality across the world between those people who suffer terrible conditions and those who don't. As long as there's that huge inequality, then I am motivated to keep donating a part of my income."

Member Profile: Pippa Gilbert

Meet Pippa Gilbert, originally from Great Britain, but for the last 11 years a resident of The Hague in the Netherlands. Pippa works as an analyst for an international organization and enjoys being active in her free time. She is passionate about cycling and is a member of local cycling and running clubs. She is also an active volunteer. Earlier this year, Pippa 

Pippa's journey with effective giving and charitable donations started a long time ago. At first, she tried to research charities and organizations on her own to ensure that the money she donated would be well-spent. After realizing that it was too time-consuming to identify effective organizations, Pippa turned to the 

, recalling that she had heard about its 

Pippa's motivation for giving is mainly driven by her acknowledgment of inequalities around the world:

The main factor that Pippa considers when 

 is confidence about its effectiveness. The bulk of her giving is directed toward alleviating human suffering, but she is also keen on supporting environmental and animal welfare causes:

Blog

The behavioural science of donating to charity: Why we sometimes fail to do the most good we can, and what can be done about it

How does change happen? The power of social proof in behaviour change & successful movement growth

Member Profile: Alexandra Berlina

Member Profile: Pippa Gilbert

November 2020 Newsletter

How to buy happiness

Member Profile: Michael Aird

October 2020 Newsletter

Introducing our 'Open Forum' online events

You can make a difference (yes, you!)