̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - Charity

Viral charity campaigns have a psychological 'recipe' and all-too-brief lifespan

fpjl2 — Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:01:23 +0000

A ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge researcher has identified a recipe for the new breed of wildly successful online charity campaigns such as the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge – a phenomenon he has labelled “viral altruism” – and what might make them stick in people’s minds.

However, he says the optimistic use of global digital networks to propel positive social change is balanced by the shallow, short-lived nature of engagement with anything viral.

Writing in the journal Nature Human Behaviour, social psychologist Dr Sander van der Linden has outlined the key psychological levers he says underpin the new wave of viral altruism that is increasingly taking over our Facebook feeds.

These include the power of social norms, particularly the appeal of joining a social consensus and the desire to conform to prosocial behaviour (such as appearing charitable), having a clear moral incentive to act, and the appetite for a ‘warm glow’: the positive emotional benefit derived from feeling compassionate.

One of the most important ingredients – and the hardest to achieve – is ‘translational impact’: the conversion of online token support, or ‘clicktivism’, into sustained real world contributions, whether financial donations or a long-term commitment to an issue.

This, he says, involves a shift in motivation from the ‘extrinsic’ – incentives conditional on outside social pressures – to the ‘intrinsic’: an incentive that has been internalised to become a “new personal normal” for an individual.

Part of van der Linden’s initial research has been to pull together data such as Google and Wikipedia searches as well as donations to indicate the longevity and engagement levels of the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge campaign.

̽��ֱ��Challenge reached unprecedented ‘virality’ during August 2014. ̽��ֱ��formula of videoing ice-cold water being poured over your head and posting it to social media while publicly nominating others to do the same in support of a motor neurone disease charity reached approximately 440 million people worldwide, with over 28 million joining in.

'Brightly but briefly'

Yet van der Linden found that the Challenge burned brightly but briefly: with online interest and donations reverting to pre-viral levels in mere weeks. ̽��ֱ��engagement was also superficial: estimates suggest that 1 in 4 participants did not mention the ALS charity in their videos and only 1 in 5 mentioned a donation.

And, while the 2014 campaign caused a significant spike in donations – some $115m – when the ALS charity attempted to reboot the Ice Bucket Challenge the following year it raised less than 1% of the previous summer.

Other examples of viral altruism considered to be successful also appear to have an equally brief “half-life”. ̽��ֱ��Facebook organ donor initiative elicited more than 60% of its total online registrations in the first two days before numbers rapidly dropped off. Save Darfur was one of the largest campaigns on Facebook; after joining, most members never donated money or recruited anyone else.

Van der Linden believes converting the brief social pressures of viral altruism into self-sustaining personal motivations is the key to leveraging new digital networks for long-term engagement with the big issues of our time, such as climate change.

However, he argues that it may be the very viral nature of ‘viral altruism’ that acts as a barrier to this.

“Society now has the ability to connect and mobilise over a billion Facebook users to action on specific social issues in a fast and low-cost manner, but it is becoming clear this entails viral phenomena which by their very nature are ephemeral and superficial,” says van der Linden, from Cambridge’s Department of Psychology.

Hyper-viral paradox

“Just as a flame that burns twice as bright burns half as long, so a rapid social consensus spike reaches an equally rapid saturation point.

“Once the social tipping point of a campaign has passed, momentum can decay quickly and the purpose can get diluted. Once the ALS campaign had reached peak virality, many people were just pouring cold water over their heads without necessarily referencing the charity.

“Paradoxically, increasing meaningful engagement through viral altruism might actually require deliberately hindering the hyper-viral nature at some point with a stabilising force. Perhaps introducing aspects to a campaign that increasingly require more commitment – slowing growth and encouraging deeper engagement. If we want people to internalise a new normal, we need to give them a window big enough to do that.

“Deeper engagement seems especially vital. Something as simple as a single phrase connecting a campaign to its cause can make a difference. For example, those who mentioned the ALS charity in their Ice Bucket Challenge video were five times more likely to donate money than those who did not.”

SMART recipe

Van der Linden has set out his recipe for viral altruism using the acronym SMART: Social influences; Moral imperatives; Affective Reactions; Translational impact.

̽��ֱ��ALS campaign managed to exploit a two-pronged approach to 'social influences'. People were influenced by the example of those in their network, and wanted to join the burgeoning consensus. ̽��ֱ��nature of the campaign also meant that many were publicly challenged to participate by their social network, and risked the 'social sanction' of being seen to lack compassion if they then didn't.

Helping people with a debilitating disease was seen as a 'moral imperative'. Van der Linden says that having 'identifiable victims' such as scientist Prof Stephen Hawking allowed people to relate to the cause.

Campaigns that allow for the creation of a shared identity between the individual and the cause over time appear to be more successful in achieving translational impact.
Sander van der Linden

'Affective Reactions' is the response to strong emotional content. "Empathy is an emotional contagion," says van der Linden. "We are evolutionarily hard-wired to 'catch' other people's feelings. Responding with an altruistic act give us a 'warm glow' of positivity. Similarly, people often respond to social injustice, such as genocide, with strong moral outrage."

However, where almost all campaigns stumble is 'Translational impact', he says. "Extrinsic incentives, such as competitions or network pressure, can actually undermine people's intrinsic motivation to do good by eroding moral sentiment. Motivation to participate can get sourced from a desire to 'win' a challenge or appear virtuous rather than caring about the cause itself."

Climate change is an example of a major global issue that currently scores pretty much zero for the SMART recipe, says van der Linden.

"Climate change often fails to elicit strong emotional engagement, there is little to no societal pressure to act on climate change in our daily lives, most people do not view it as a fundamental moral issue, and the long-term nature of the problem requires more than a one-off donation."

He suggests that using the SMART recipe could be a way to reverse engineer more effective climate change campaigns that harness viral altruism, but the problem of translating impact remains.

One of the more impactful campaigns van der Linden highlights is 'Movember': the month-long growing of a moustache to raise awareness of men's health. Starting with just 30 people in 2003, the campaign didn't experience viral hypergrowth, but developed over years to reach about 5 million members by 2014 - by which time the charity reported 75% of participants were more aware of health issues facing men.

"Campaigns that allow for the creation of a shared identity between the individual and the cause over time appear to be more successful in achieving translational impact."

New work focusing on the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge reveals very brief shelf life of such viral campaigns, and suggests the nature of ‘virality’ and social tipping points themselves may be a stumbling block to deeper engagement with social issues that campaigns aim to promote.

Increasing meaningful engagement through viral altruism might actually require deliberately hindering the hyper-viral nature at some point with a stabilising force

Sander van der Linden

Charlie Baker

ALS Ice Bucket Challenge

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike

Willingness to give to charity depends on how inferior or superior you feel

Anonymous — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 11:51:05 +0000

Suppose a cancer charity’s advertisement that says “Making strides toward a world with more birthdays” was changed to say “Making strides toward giving you more birthdays.” Would this influence your likelihood to donate? A new study argues that it does – depending on whether you are comparing yourself favourably or unfavourably to other people.

̽��ֱ��first advert (the actual ad copy used by the American Cancer Society’s Relay for Life), which focuses on giving the world more birthdays, would be more effective if you feel relatively better off than others (a “downward comparison”). This is because people making downward comparisons are more likely to give as a means of expressing altruistic values, such as to give back and be a better person. In contrast, people who feel inferior in some way (an “upward comparison”) are more likely to give in order to benefit themselves – to give oneself more birthdays, in this example.

In a study published online in Journal of Consumer Psychology, Professor Ann Schlosser of Foster School of Business, ̽��ֱ�� of Washington, and Dr Eric Levy of the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge Judge Business School found that those making downward and upward comparisons differ in how willing they are to help in order to benefit others’ lives.

These results have important implications, because, depending on whether an advert’s target segment feels generally better or worse off than others, charities should craft their appeals to emphasise benefits to others or individuals, respectively – and this context is critical to the success of a charitable appeal, the study found.

“For charities, the study finds that adverts highlighting the altruistic reasons for giving, such as how giving would benefit others, would be more likely to appeal to people who feel in a relatively good position in their lives,” says Dr Levy, ̽��ֱ�� Lecturer in Marketing at Cambridge Judge. “This can help charities target their ads far more effectively.

“Given that most charity advertisements focus on 'benefits to others' rather than to oneself, the study suggests that many of these ads may be ineffective in motivating people to give when they are feeling worse off than others. So charity managers should seek to ascertain if their target audience feels worse off than others, and if so say something like ‘help improve air quality so you can live a healthier life’ rather than ‘help improve air quality so people around the world can live healthier lives’.”

Although there has been six decades of research on “comparison theory,” the direction of comparison as a predictor of people’s willingness to give had previously been little explored, the paper said.

̽��ֱ��paper is based on four separate but related experimental tests on hundreds of people, including undergraduate students as well as non-students.

In one test, students were told that their job prospects were easier (prompting downward comparison) or worse (prompting upward comparison) to another group of college students. ̽��ֱ��students were then shown volunteering opportunities that emphasised benefits to others (”help those less fortunate by giving to those who need it”) or self-benefit (“build connections by networking with local business and community leaders”). ̽��ֱ��result: “Those in the downward (vs. upward) condition were more willing to help when the ad used an other-benefit appeal.”

Another of the four studies showed that those making downward comparisons gave more money than a no-comparison control group, while those making upward comparisons gave marginally less.

Across the four studies, the researchers consistently found that downward comparisons increase individuals’ willingness to give when the context explicitly states or implies that giving will benefit others.

Reference
Ann E. Schlosser and Eric Levy. Helping others or oneself: How direction of comparison affects prosocial behaviour. Journal of Consumer Psychology; 22 Feb 2016; DOI: doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2016.02.002

Adapted from a press release from the Cambridge Judge Business School

An individual’s likelihood to donate to charity – and the amount they donate – depends on whether they feel superior or inferior to others, which has implications for charity advertising strategies, according to new study co-authored at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge Judge Business School.

Given that most charity advertisements focus on 'benefits to others' rather than to oneself, the study suggests that many of these ads may be ineffective in motivating people to give when they are feeling worse off than others

Eric Levy

Images Money

Coins (cropped)

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Opinion: Why new anti-lobbying rules leave small charities out in the cold

Anonymous — Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:02:43 +0000

Charities will no longer be able to use public money for lobbying activities according to new rules. ̽��ֱ��anti-advocacy clause in government contracts announced by the Cabinet Office stated that “taxpayers’ money must be spent on improving people’s lives and spreading opportunities, not wasted on the farce of government lobbying government”, adding that it was “a zero sum game if Peter is robbed to pay Paul”.

There are structures for local communication between the public and voluntary sectors, such as Local Strategic Partnerships, but these do not connect charities with the national policymakers that regulate their work. This is particularly true for small and medium-sized charities who already lack channels of communication, despite the value of their experience working closely with service users. This is a potentially more profound political problem resulting from the clause.

So if the government is serious about not stifling debate, but rather to ensure money is spent on services, then it should demonstrate this through creating other venues for critiquing policy and transmitting knowledge gained from frontline service delivery.

Feedback from the frontline

̽��ֱ��new clause has been criticised by umbrella charities such as the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) and others, although charities such as Shelter, cited in the government announcement as an example of using private funds for lobbying, have been (officially) quiet. Those who have criticised the government’s regulation have expressed their concern that knowledge from frontline service delivery, which should inform better decision-making in policy, will go unused.

For these critics, the “farce” is a political construction that in practice undermines the aim of government funding to address social problems. John Tizard, an adviser and commentator on public policy, wrote that his “experience suggests that mature and confident politicians welcome informed debate and campaigns, even when they disagree with them”.

A joint letter from the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations and NCVO also said the clause “may actually cost the taxpayer more money through limiting the range of insight that policy makers can draw upon”.

Deep cuts

Yet it’s the issue for smaller charities that cuts deepest. Both the local charities and government-funded consortia that bring together community-based associations working in the same area (such as public health), and the community activists the government now depends on to fill the gaps created by cuts, risk becoming more distant than ever from the political elites instigating those cuts. These groups operate job clubs, advice networks, food banks, lunch clubs, and other activities that are often replacing or compensating for reduced local public services.

Large charities such as Shelter, with diverse sources of funding, will continue to pressure the government over poverty-related issues like housing and likewise receive recognition as a representative of the sector. But smaller charities or government-funded local consortia, which already lack a voice because of their size and diversity, may find themselves even more financially and politically marginalised in a climate that will discourage open, public discussion.

This marginalisation may affect both local charities and policymakers in three specific ways:

• It will exacerbate the mounting frustration and workload among many local charities facing daily the personal consequences of policies like sanctions, the bedroom tax, and cuts to public services, but unable to leverage this responsibility for greater access to policymakers.

• Likewise, there will be an increasingly visible tension between local charities striving to be “safe spaces”, where service users can trust that someone will listen and try to help, and the policies that affect their work. Policies like the anti-advocacy clause implicitly convey a lack of trust in the intentions of charities and demonstrate the unwillingness of policymakers to listen to what charity staff have to say.

• Community-based associations that serve particular ethnic and religious groups may have little or no capacity to express the impact their projects have on integration, undermining policies aimed at inclusion.

Smaller charities (and bigger ones too) must be able to transmit knowledge and findings from the frontline to those making policy. If the government keeps the anti-advocacy clause, then it must provide alternative ways for charities to voice concerns – or share ideas. These forums should include charities dependent on government funding or which lack the resources to develop a policy position so that they have the opportunity to have genuine influence over policymaking. They should include a range of charities from diverse local communities, not just the large national charities that can afford to lobby using private funds, in order to gain the broadest understanding of the social impact of current policies and the policy reforms needed to improve this impact.

Shana Cohen, Senior Research Associate, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge

This article was originally published on ̽��ֱ��Conversation. Read the original article.

̽��ֱ��opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author(s) and do not represent the views of the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge.

Shana Cohen (Woolf Institute) discusses the anti-advocacy clause in government contracts that means charities will no longer be able to use public money for lobbying activities.

ccbarr

Volunteer

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-ShareAlike

‘Moral identity’ key to charitable time giving

sc604 — Fri, 05 Jun 2015 01:31:32 +0000

Charities have long wrestled with the issue of persuading people to donate their time to worthy causes. Many potential time-givers donate money instead due to the perceived psychological costs of giving their time – which is by definition limited.

But new research co-authored at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge finds that ‘moral identity’ can overcome time aversion because it affirms and reinforces this identity, especially when the cost of giving time rises – and charities can use this key insight in recruiting people for time-giving tasks.

Significantly, the study found that charities can issue 'moral cues' that trigger such moral identity and make people more likely to donate their time to good causes – a key practical finding for the charitable sector. Defining 'moral identity' around a set of nine traits including kindness, caring and generosity, the study found that moral identity can be activated by showing people images of 'moral exemplars' such as Gandhi and Mother Teresa, and quotations focused on the same idea such as: “Wherever there is a human being, there is a chance for kindness.”

According to the study, a strong moral identity may reduce time aversion not despite the higher cost of giving time, but rather because of it. Put another way, giving time more strongly reinforces the moral self, compared to giving money, according to the researchers, who call time aversion a ‘socio-psychological malady.’

̽��ֱ��study, entitled “I don’t want the money, I just want your time: how moral identity overcomes the aversion to giving time to pro-social causes”, has just been accepted for publication by the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

“ ̽��ֱ��study has significant implications for how charities and other good causes recruit volunteers for time-giving tasks,” says co-author Eric Levy, of Cambridge Judge Business School. “We found that there is a strong connection between moral identity and the willingness to donate time.”

One key finding was that when the cost of giving time rises, people with a high moral identity may be more motivated to give their time, and those with a low moral identity are more averse to giving their time. Conversely, in low-cost situations, those with a high moral identity are less apt to give their time than are people with low moral identity.

This suggests that charities need to consider levels of ‘moral salience’ in their promotional material and other outreach to potential time-givers.

According to the study, if charities wish to recruit volunteers for low-time-cost tasks they may be better off targeting individuals whose moral identities occupy a less central role within their self-concept. Conversely, if they wish to recruit volunteers for tasks with a high time cost they may do well to target individuals whose moral identities occupy a more central role in their self-concept.

̽��ֱ��research paper comprises four separate studies. ̽��ֱ��first finds that moral identity can make giving time appear less costly; the second and third find that a ‘moral cue’ reduces time aversion even in unpleasant situations (such as emptying dirty hospital bedpans) and when time appears to be scarce (by enhancing a perceived connection between the time-giver and the beneficiary of the time donation); the fourth accounts for the real costs of time, finding that the ‘chronic salience of moral identity’ especially lessens time aversion when giving time becomes increasingly costly.

̽��ֱ��study was co-authored by Americus Reed II of the Wharton School, ̽��ֱ�� of Pennsylvania; Adam Kay, a doctoral student at the ̽��ֱ�� of British Columbia; Stephanie Finnel, a marketing support services specialist at BAYADA Home Health Care; Karl Aquino of the Sauder School of Business at the ̽��ֱ�� of British Columbia; and Eric Levy of ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge Judge Business School.

Adapted from a Cambridge Judge Business School story.

Charities want your time and not just your money: new study identifies factors that lessen ‘time aversion’ in charitable giving.

There is a strong connection between moral identity and the willingness to donate time

Eric Levy

Bio Blitz

Tony Smith, volunteer naturalist, talks to students from Brislington Enterprise College

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution

Veteran walks in Cambridge for charity

sjr81 — Wed, 30 May 2012 10:01:22 +0000

Packer, whilst serving as a Major in the Royal Military Police, was injured on active duty in Iraq on February 2008. Suffering severe spinal damage, broken ribs and a bruised heart, he was told he would never walk again. He has since rowed the English Channel, climbed El Capitan and twice completed the London Marathon. His charity efforts raised £1.3 million in 2009 alone.

Packer will start the day at the ̽��ֱ��’s running track in Wilberforce Road, meeting with representatives of Cambridge ̽��ֱ�� Sport and Cambridge Officer Training Corps. He will then walk around the City.

̽��ֱ��British Inspiration Trust seeks to support young people facing adversity by providing both direct support for them and support for their carers. Fundraising is on-going for a new Centre for Inspirational Excellence in West Sussex, which will provide accommodation for young people and carers, as well as dedicated sports, counselling and educational facilities.

Tony Lemons, Director of Physical Education at the ̽��ֱ��, said: “It’s a real pleasure to be able to support Phil on his walk to both raise money and awareness for young people facing adversity through mental or physical support needs. We’re glad to show Phil around Cambridge and highlight the sporting achievements of the ̽��ֱ�� in this Olympic year.For more information about the BRIT 2012 Challenge, please click here.

Major Phil Packer MBE will today walk eight miles in Cambridge as part of his BRIT 2012 Challenge. This challenge, which is fundraising for the British Inspiration Trust, will see Packer walk 2012 miles across the country this year.

It’s a real pleasure to be able to support Phil on his walk to both raise money and awareness for young people facing adversity through mental or physical support needs.

Tony Lemons

Phil Packer

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes