Cedric Kouamou
English 200, 1994
Dr. England
9 April 2015
The Invisible Force
The Psychological Drive to Give Charities have become a prominent form of giving in our society, but what drives us towards these mediums of exchange? Is it for our own satisfaction? Peer pressure? Guilt? My research shows that the conscious state of an individual plays the most important role when engaging in donating, it serves as the pendulum which is pushed by outside forces into contributing to charities. My definition of charitable giving is donating and allocating a portion of your assets for an underprivileged group of individuals with the intentions to better their lives. By assets I do not only mean money, I also mean any valued resources such as time and knowledge that can greatly enhance another individuals living standards. Participating in charities has an array of advantages, from the uplifting feeling it brings to the donator, to the benefits received by those in need, it serves as a mediator of joy and happiness for all those involved. Most of my research shows that the majority of disadvantages with charity stems from the consciousness of an individual, as noted earlier; if a person is not in the right state of mind, he or she will be liable to falling prey to countless scams and pressured donations. Fortunately, there are several solutions available in order to quell these fears, such as researching the charity beforehand, tracking what kind of impact your donations makes, and checking the legitimacy of the organization. The research I conducted took me through a long journey to find the answers for the psychological desires that drives us to donate. It is become quite obvious that charitable giving has become a staple in our nation, as one of the most prosperous economies in the world it is seen as a moral obligation to donate to the less fortunate. For many individuals donating serves a bigger role, the need to satisfy subconscious urges acts as the primary motive behind their decision to give. For example, take a person who donates their assets because he or she thinks it will get them a step closer to heaven; cravings such as this all aim for one goal, that is to achieve a higher level of social prosperity. Social prosperity is not just defined as ones economic success, but also the varying degree of happiness a person has with himself (Reyniers et al., 9). An article by Evolutionary Psychology recites an experiment in which a group of people were shown images of eyes watching them as they donated and recorded the effects. The effects were split up into two categories prosociality and normative accounts; prosociality is defined as the increase in generosity when an act is more observable, and normative is defined as the increased following of social norms when being viewed upon (Fathi et al., 879). The authors then conducted their own experiment, in which participants were paid to take a questionnaire and a donation jar was placed in visible sight. The participants with the eye images showing were more generous with their donations than the other participants with no images (Fathi et al., 879). The results show that most of the participants felt mentally pressured into conforming to society norms and donating more than they would have initially without the images, the gratitude received for their altruistic display serves as a motivator that boost their social prosperity and protects them from any guilt if they would have chosen otherwise. Situation such as this are quite common, there are other theories that support this outcome, take Maslow’s hierarchy of needs for example, the extra effort put out by individuals to meet societies expectations all fall under the psychological section of belongingness and esteem needs.
The advantages from charitable giving are more internal than external, they ultimately satisfy the forces that cause us to donate; the article by Diane Reyniers and Richa Bhalla called “Reluctant Altruism and Peer Pressure in Charitable Giving” give three types of benefits we receive from donating. First, donating can be used as a pick me up, by elevating negatives moods. Secondly, donating helps to eliminate guilt and boost ones social image. Lastly, giving to charities is seen as a sign of altruistic behavior, which is a cherished act that pressure others to do the same (Reyniers and Bhalla 8). For many people donating serves the purpose of satisfying one of these benefits, when you are feeling down for example, making somebody else feel joyful can be a more powerful method to lighten stressful moods than trying to make yourself happy. For people trying to become leaders in their society, donating to charities has become a known cliché tactic that many use in order to be seen as a generous person. One externality produced by charitable giving is that others feel compelled to donate once they see you doing it. When you see your friends helping a friend or donating to a familiar cause, your mind tells you that you have to be involved or else all your friends will ostracize you. This burden causes bystanders to contribute in an effort to maintain or improve their position on the social ladder. Essentially, this increases the amount of donations cycling through our society and gives the underprivileged more resources to help mend their lives.
The disadvantages associated with charitable giving arise from the outside pressure, such as guilt and peer pressure on the consciousness that causes people to unwillingly donate to charities. When people are in a need to augment their social status, giving to those in need is usually seen as a reasonable course of action, but these desires can easily be manipulated by charities who present sob stories in an effort to steal assets from these individuals. Take the Kony 2012 fiasco for instance, the story by Titeca Kristof and Sebastian Matthew called “Why did Invisible Children dissolve?” highlights the unethical practices by the non-profit organization called Invisible Children and the ensuing backlash which resulted in its downfall (Kristof et al., 2014). The article gives a quick background on Invisible Children’s (IC) goal, which was to spread awareness about the ruthless warlord known as Joseph Kony; the focus of their actions was aimed towards Uganda, where Kony supposedly resided in. Titeca and Sebastian then explain how IC used many misinterpreted facts to further their agenda and even lied about their role in ending the conflict (Kristof et al., 2014). As their campaign continued, a plethora of criminalizing suggestions came from many Americans and Ugandans who claimed that Joseph Kony was no longer alive and active. IC was then met with heated opposition from many donors who felt as if they were scammed (Kristof et al., 2014). Stories as this show how oblivious some people become when they see an opportunity to better the lives of those in need. Many people get so fixated on the tragic stories behind charities that they throw out the possibility of any foul play being involved. With Invisible Children’s story taking America by storm, it made those who were not donating or showing compassion towards their efforts feel guilty for their actions. As stated earlier, the peer pressure from charitable giving can be positive, but it also has some negative aspects. When people succumb to this pressure it causes them to make regrettable decisions, such as donating to charities while enduring financial hardship and giving away their assets that had a more important purpose. For example, many people have been in a situation where they are cornered by a person that begs them for help, before you can say no, you see your friends and associates aiding this person already. In order to avoid the guilt for not joining your friends in assisting this person, you accept their plea and after it’s over you immediately begin to regret your decision as you could have been elsewhere doing something more productive. From an outside perspective, you might wonder why these people don’t just say no; but with everyone always trying to maintain a good perception about themselves, they tend to overlook the negatives in order to attain the positives of a situation.
Some of the solutions to use in order to evade these common mind traps are really simple to do and can help in giving people security behind their decisions. The article by Hanna Helhoski named ”3 Ways to Avoid Charity Donation Fraud this Holiday Season” highlights the dos and don’ts when donating to charities; the article starts out by stated an attention grabbing statistic which is that, “a whopping two-thirds of individuals who give charitable contributions don’t research the organizations they’re donating to” (Helhoski). Helhoski then goes on to give his three tips of how to avoid fraud, with the first being seeking transparency by using online research tools to help better understand an organization financial standing. Second, is to make sure that what you are donating to is actually receiving a good portion of the money you give instead on just relying on what the organization tells you (Helhoski). Lastly, the most important tip is to make sure the charity is IRS approved, if not than the donations are liable for tax expenses and greatly reduce the legitimacy of the organization (Helhoski). Using these rules as a benchmark can greatly reduce the risk of being scammed by charities. These rules are synonymous with the old saying of “don’t judge a book by its cover”. Instead of just reading what an organizations goals are it helps greatly to seek further transparency and come to a 100 percent understanding of what you are donating to. If the people who donated to Invisible Children had followed these guidelines, there would be a far lesser number of victims complaining about being scammed. Once you become fully knowledge about a certain charity you take full control of the decision to donate or not. This essentially takes away the guilt and wards off any peer pressure when decide not to donate to charities. If their goals are not aligned with your beliefs you can now give a truthful reason as to why you are not supporting a charitable cause.
When faced with donating we always look for a reason as to why we should donate, in a brief experiment I conducted on my peers in my English 200 class I came up with my own theory which resembles my research. I used two homeless signs, the first one stating, “homeless please help god bless” and the second one stating “just lost my job, my family is hungry anything helps”. I took a poll to see which one my peers would donate too, and as suspected the majority chose the second one. After all my research I concluded that the reason for this result was because they can better relate to that sign. All of us as college students looking to join the workforce have this fear in the back of our heads that we might end up homeless or on the streets following a dismissal from work. So we would donate to a person holding this sign in an effort to quell these fears by hoping to receive some form of karma or guidance from our creator that steers us away from a similar fate. In conclusion charitable giving is a good act that can sometimes be clouded by individual desires, and has become more of an act of exchanging than giving. Reyniers and Bhalla defined charitable giving as a “redistribution of the heart”, this quote sums up what donating is perfectly (Reyniers and Bhalla 8). When the heart desires something it wants something in return, love from another person to satisfaction from technology; when we donate, our heart seeks to satisfy all the guilt and pressures veiling our minds in an effort to make us happier within ourselves.

Works Cited Helhoski, Hanna. “3 Ways to Avoid Charity Donation Fraud this Holiday Season.” NerdWallet.com. NerdWallet Inc, 2 Dec. 2014. Web. 12 Apr. 2015. Moe Fathi, Melissa Bateson, and Daniel Nettle. "Effects of Watching Eyes and Norm Cues on Charitable Giving in a Surreptitious Behavioral Experiment." Evolutionary Psychology 12.5 (2014): 878-87. Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Apr. 2015. Reyniers, Diane, and Richa Bhalla. "Reluctant Altruism and Peer Pressure in Charitable Giving." Judgment & Decision Making 8.1 (2013): 7-15. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 Apr. 2015. Titeca, Kristof; Sebastian, Matthew. “Why did Invisible Children dissolve?” Monkey Cage. Washington Post 30 December 2014. Web. O3 April 2015.