Hey 42: here when was the last time you gave to charity, maybe you popped your change into the collection bucket at your local store. Perhaps you give a few quid monthly via one or more subscriptions to your favorite charities.
Maybe you got bullied by some bloke in the streets. He was armed with a clipboard and a fake smile into subscribing to some Bazaar charity that gives out eye patches to one-eyed pheasants, and you’ve regretted it ever since you just can’t stomach the guilt of canceling, your Direct Debit, Don’t worry, we’ve all been there.
Now. Let me ask you: when you gave to charity, how did it make you feel I’m willing to bet you felt pretty damn good about yourself in one study that involved brain MRIs. It was found that when we voluntarily make donations a part of the brain called the ventral striatum lit up.
This is the reward center of the brain and it also lights up when people do cocaine. In other words, giving to charity is a highly hedonistic pursuit. The researchers behind this story refer to the feeling when people made donations as a warm glow, people know that when they give a fiver to a dog shelter, they will get a warm glow.
That’s. Why they do it. It has very little to do with the dogs themselves. Yes, I am insinuating that giving to charity is a selfish act. We do it because it makes us feel good, not because it actually does God, and I can prove it about.
10 % of people will give money at every opportunity, 10 % will never give, and the remaining 80 % will give if the opportunity in front of them talks it just to write heartstrings of emotional guilt, but it’s, not actually the guilt that Makes the people give it’s, the fact that they know they will feel better about themselves afterwards, they will feel lot warm glow.
A study published in the Journal of Neuroscience found that most people, in that 80 % brackets only give when they think their donation will put a smile on us. Cific person’s, face not many people’s faces, but one specific individual who they can envision smiling because the brains pleasure centers are activated when we make others smile and ultimately, that is what the donor is.
Seeking that’s feeling of self gratification, the study found that people are less likely to give when confronted with statistics over the plight of an individual. For instance, if a bunch of people were shown a TV ad that explains how contaminated drinking water causes.
The deaths of half a million Africans each year according to the research, these people are very unlikely to give money to help fix that. However, if those same people are shown, the story of young malnourished Timmy, who treks 3 miles barefoot every day to collect dirty water for his family, a large number of those people would donate money because they can envision their donation.
Putting a smile on the face of Timmy, whereas helping out half a million people well, it feels cold empty it. Doesn’t, activate the same pleasure responses in the brain. In fact, it goes even further because studies have found that, when the scale of a disaster or need is represented with numbers, it actually lowers the chance that people will donate, whereas presenting a single, sad story of unand’visible, whilst hiding the actual statistics And data vastly increases, giving multiple studies have also highlighted the importance of face-to-face interaction during the giving process and how that heavily affects the amounts donated.
It has been generally found that people will donate significantly more when they are doing it for a friendly intermediary and they can see the faces of the people. They are helping, either in images or in real life, not to mention the smile that they will put on.
The face of the intermediary, the charity worker, whether it’s fake or not, to further prove my point – that donations are often selfishly motivated. One of the richest Charities in the UK is a donkey sanctuary in Devon.
It typically receives 14 million pounds each year, don’t. Get me wrong. Donkeys are important, but I am sure if you asked most people overall, what matters more curing cancer or caring for sick or injured donkeys, they would answer cancer.
Yet when it comes down to handing over their money, people usually opt for a donkey sanctuary over a cancer research charity because unfortunately, there’s, nothing glamorous about cancer, but donkeys.
Well, they’re. Just a bundle of joy. Children can go pet them and they just look so darn good on posters. People ultimately choose to donkey sanctuary because giving donkey gives them that warm fuzzy glow.
If you want to find the best place to see self-gratification motivating charitable giving in action, then look no further than Facebook. Back in 2017, Facebook introduced a new feature: the ability to donate your birthday to a charity or cause of your choosing, and then on that day, Facebook will aggressively bombard all your virtual friends with a guilt trip reminder to donate to that charity because Sandra from that Place you used to work at from a week last summer has donated her birthday to it on the surface.
This whole practice seems like a purely altruistic thing to do, but I would argue that donating your birthday to a charity of a social media platform is possibly the most self-aggrandizing way to give money, and this is why Facebook is a platform that was intended to connect The world, but the reality is that it & # 39.
S made the world more disconnected than ever before, because people don’t log on to Facebook to socialize they log on to get self-gratification. I won’t go into yet another round about Facebook. You can go and read a bunch of studies about the damaging psychology of the platform if you desire, but generally people logon, primarily to see how many likes their latest post has amassed and analyze exactly who and who has not likes it.
And what better way is there to get likes and mass adornment from your social circle by telling them all how wouldn’t’ve ly altruistic. You are by donating your birthday and there may be another reason why most people enjoy giving.
According to a study from 2005 donating money and other forms of giving is something that has been hardwired into our DNA through evolution, because, as it turns out, it may be good for your health. A study in 1999 followed over 55 s for a five-year period.
It was found that those who regularly volunteered their time and/or money were significantly more likely to still be alive at the end of those 5 years than those who never helped or gave to of us. This could possibly be because more recent studies have found that giving significantly reduces blood pressure, such as a very recent study carried out by the university of british columbia that gave 128 adults between 65 to 85 40 dollars.
Each week for 3 weeks, half were told to spend the money on themselves. The other half were instructed suspended on others. Those who spent their money on others saw a noticeable drop in stress levels and blood pressure.
After only three weeks, there was no change in blood pressure levels for the participants who spent the money on themselves. Furthermore, it was found that the largest blood pressure level decreases were seen when people chose to give their money to people close to them or causes that were close to their heart.
For example, a war veteran would see greater health benefits by giving to a PTSD related charity rather than a cat sanctuary. Probably the most selfish realm of philanthropy is when its carried out by high net worth individuals as an attempt at showing the world how ostensibly virtuous they are.
Celebrities and charity go together like cheese and wine bono Angelina, Clooney Oprah. The list is endless, despite the fact that charities all over the world continue to hire celebrity brand ambassadors in their droves.
The research indicates that it actually are horrendously ineffective form of marketing and a huge waste of the charity in questions donation funds. Research conducted in the UK at the universities of Manchester and Sussex indicates that celebrities are ineffective at motivating people to support charities.
The research indicated that whilst people can easily associate certain celebrities with philanthropy, they struggle to remember which charities and causes those celebrities have promoted. So the net brand exposure for those charities is actually rather limited.
However, the vastly increased PR exposure for the celebrity is enormous, because even when virtue signaling is obvious and transparent, it still wins people over. It also found that people are very rarely influenced by celebrity endorsements to support a certain charity and that they are much more likely to choose charities based on personal connections such as those that target issues which may affect them or a member of their family.
So then, it turns out that giving isn’t only motivated by pure altruism giving to charity is, for the most part, a selfish act, but you know what that’s, absolutely fine! That’s. We live in a society where a large number of us regularly give money to those who need it.
The most is a wonderful thing, and does it really matter if the motives for that are self-serving? No, of course it doesn’t charity recipients. Don’t care why people give. They are just grateful that people do so long as people are giving wisely to the correct charities, as I’ve covered in a previous article.
So by my estimation, if the only reason that most people donate is to make themselves feel better, then that’s, fantastic, because the end result is that people do donate. After all, it’s very likely that if giving to charity, didn’t give us all a warm glow, then a significantly smaller number of us would ever do so.
Sometimes selfishness is the greatest motivator for achieving greatness and doing great things, and there’s, absolutely nothing wrong with that. Thanks for watching, I & # 39. Ve recently launched my first book.
It’s called sticky flag in it. A thousand years of bizarre history from Britain and beyond, if you want to get your hands on a first edition, signed copy, then head on over to unbound publishing the links in the description and pledge today.