We all like to
think that we donate our time and money due to altruism. In fact, when you ask
people why they give to charity, they almost always claim that it is the right
thing to do, that they want to give back, etc. However, according to the NPR
segment “What Motives People to Give,” 75% of the time that we donate, it is
due to social pressure, not altruism. Try to remember the last time that you
donated your time or money; perhaps it was for the tweet of the week contest.
Did you donate because you really trusted the winner to give the money to a
worthy cause, or did you do it because everyone else was doing it?
The question of why we give is
central to philanthropy. It encompasses not only aspects of our own character,
such as our core values, but also influences from our environment. Last week we
focused on our own core values, and how they impact our philanthropy. This week
we will look at outside influences, which, in my opinion, can push us donate
more than our core values can push us to donate. Social pressure is one
example, but there are many more, including the norm of reciprocity. This is
best illustrated by the example of a charity that sends a gift to a recipient,
and the recipient feels the need to send back money to the charity. Both social
pressure and the norm of reciprocity encourage philanthropy, whether or not the
donor will continue this philanthropy in the long term. Do you believe that
social pressure and the norm of reciprocity justify the idea that, outside
influences can be more powerful than our own core values in compelling us to
donate? Or, are strong core values the only thing that we need to be
philanthropic?
Along with environmental influences
and our own core values, we might be compelled to donate because of a certain
euphoric feeling that it brings us. In short, we donate because donating makes
us feel good. In “How to Buy Happiness,” a Ted Talk by Michael Norton (link
below), Norton explains several studies that he conducted to test the effects
of increased wealth on happiness. In his experiments, college students were
given either five dollars or twenty dollars, and were instructed to either
spend the money on themselves or on others. Norton found that those who spent
the money on others were happier than those who spent the money on themselves. More
interestingly, the amount of money that students were able to spend on others
did not impact how happy they were at the end of the experiment. Do you think
that this relates to why we give? Do some people donate just to attain that
euphoric feeling? And lastly, how do you feel about the fact that students felt
just as happy giving five dollars, as they did giving twenty dollars?
Before we donate money, no matter
the quantity, it is important that we understand why we are donating. Social
pressure, core values, and the simple desire to feel good impact our
philanthropy. Which of these impacts your own philanthropy most frequently?
https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_norton_how_to_buy_happiness?language=en
I agree that people give to bring happiness to themselves and to others. But I want to focus on our generation. I feel as if we live in an era of "Resumé Builders." That being said, students want to advance themselves through philanthropy, but for all the wrong reasons. We should be teaching children that the reward for giving back is not that it takes up yet another line on our resumé. Students shouldn't be compelled to donate money or time just because they feel like they have to. I know that in my high school, a lot of kids felt burdened by the necessary community service hours needed to graduate. That being said, some students do give because it makes them happy- but not enough students feel that way. Something more impressive to the world is what you can learn from your experiences of giving to others, and how that shapes you as a person. If that idea is expressed, then we would be living in a truly altruistic society. This article really addresses the problems that our generation faces today concerning volunteerism, http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/08/21/01volunteer_ep.h33.html. But, there are effective ways of teaching students the mantra "learning by giving", like the Tweet of the Week Contest. Students in this class have much more of a knowledge base in philanthropy that yes, I would trust whoever wins the contest each week to donate to something that they deemed worthy. It makes me happy knowing that a student in our class gets to donate to a cause they are dedicated to- even if that organization wasn't my first choice. This leads me to conclude with what impacts my philanthropy. I would have to say it is my desire to make and see a change. This is because I am a very pragmatic person, and I wouldn't want to donate to an organization where my donation would just join thousands of others donations just like mine: into a huge unknown and then I wouldn't know what difference I made with my donation. I get that euphoric feeling when I see the changed that came about because of my donation!
ReplyDeleteHi Kat, I really liked your post, and I think you raised some interesting points. The first thing I thought of while reading your entry was the article about the hedge fund manager who donates a large portion of his income. In class, we discussed if the way that the hedge fund manager gives his money may not be the best approach to philanthropy. One thing that I kept thinking about throughout that discussion was does the way he is giving matter that much? Sure, he could participate in philanthropy in a more community based way, but he is still giving a large amount of money to make a difference. The difference between that article and your post is just the words how versus why. If someone is giving a large portion of their income to a cause, how important is the way the give and the reason for their giving? I think the how and why behind giving is important, but I'm not sure of the extent to which it matters.
ReplyDeleteMoving onto the reasons for giving that you discussed, I think that in a perfect world, everyone would participate in philanthropy as a result of their core values and desire to do something good. However, this will never be the case in the real world. All people have some desire in them to give to a worthy cause, but most people don't get around to it. Whether they don't give because they want to save their money or their just lazy, something gets in the way of their philanthropy. In these cases, core values just aren't enough. That's where external factors come in. When someone sees their friends donating or a celebrity participating in a foundation, they feel social pressure to donate or volunteer. Social pressure is usually not a good reason for doing something. In this case, however, it causes people to give which then gives people happiness as you discussed. Once people achieve the euphoria from giving, they are more likely to give again. This creates a cycle of giving. As one person gives they influence the people around them to give and so on. In this way, I believe external factors like social pressure to be important for philanthropy.