![\"\"](\"http:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/files\/2017\/04\/Screenshot-36.jpg\")
<\/a>What a cute child! His story of suffering from\u00a0cancer raised more than twice the amount of the original goal. Source: GoFundMe.<\/p><\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
One answer can be found in cognitive psychology. When we make careful, rational decisions, we are engaging in a controlled process<\/em>\u2014which is any process that requires slow, conscious effort. Without an identifiable victim, this is the type of process we engage in<\/a> before we donate to charity: Is this charity going to make good use of my money? How will this fit into my budget? Is there anything in it for me? But, since a controlled process takes effort, most of us are more likely to skim past the charity\u2019s ad if a single victim\u2019s story doesn\u2019t catch our eye.<\/p>\n When we see that picture of a victim who is clearly suffering and might die without our help, our heartstrings are pulled, and our emotions take over. This is because the affective system\u2014that is, the system of our emotions\u2014is an automatic process. <\/em>Automatic processes are easy tasks that we are unaware of doing, such as succumbing to our emotions. They override controlled processes before we know what\u2019s happening, and all rational and controlled thought goes out the window.<\/p>\n Though this explains how hearing the story of a victim allows us to skip the deliberate decision-making process, it doesn\u2019t explain exactly why we give more attention and aid to an individual victim. According to cognitive psychology, our attention is particularly drawn to things that are salient to us, and especially\u00a0to faces<\/a>. So if a photo of a victim’s face draws our attention, what keeps our attention after that? It could be the vividness of the story, giving us a concrete picture of suffering instead of an abstract statistic. It could be that a victim\u2019s suffering or death is certain, while estimated statistical deaths are only probable. It could be the result of preferring to help someone who has already suffered a traumatic event instead of to prevent\u00a0suffering for a larger group of people.<\/p>\n But these theories do not fully account for the identifiable victim effect. In fact, the biggest reason behind this is a statistical one: the proportion of people in a group who will certainly suffer without your help (Jenni & Loewenstein, 1997). With an identifiable victim, that proportion is 1\/1\u2014or 100%. With a larger statistic, that group is much larger, and your help makes a much smaller dent. If you decide to donate money to ending world hunger, you\u2019re very far from solving the problem\u2014but if your goal is to end one child\u2019s hunger, you can sponsor a child and you\u2019ve solved 100% of the problem.<\/p>\n Wouldn’t you like to make sure this child is fed, healthy, and able to attend school? Source: Compassion International.<\/p><\/div>\n And when you\u2019ve sponsored that child and saved them from certain despair, doesn’t it feel good? That\u2019s part of the explanation behind this effect, too. You aren\u2019t donating out of an entirely pure heart\u2014in fact, you may be donating because it makes you feel good about yourself, especially if you’ve seen a photo of the child you’re saving. Photographs of victims cause brain activation in areas associated with positive emotion, and show that we give more because of good feelings instead of negative ones like guilt (Genevsky et al., 2013).<\/p>\n If you’re a charitable person and it makes you feel good, don’t let this newfound knowledge stop you from donating to those in need. Those who know about the Identifiable Victim Effect are not only less likely to give to individual victims, but they don\u2019t give any more to charities and causes that could actually use the money (Small et al., 2007). Warning people of the effect by means of priming<\/em><\/a>\u2014a cognitive psychology tool that means giving information in advance and seeing how people use that information later\u2014does not increase rational decision-making or controlled processes in helping others. Now that I’ve told you about the effect, you may stop making donations at all, even if there are still thousands of unidentifiable victims in this world who need your help.<\/p>\n So it’s important to remember that while the Identifiable Victim Effect certainly does not help victims equally, it has proven useful for marketing non-profits and garnering donations. It depends on human compassion and the emotional response to another human’s suffering. Even though\u00a0it must highlight\u00a0an individual victim, not an identified group of several individuals (Kogut & Ritov, 2005),\u00a0the fact that we feel emotion for and give\u00a0generously to individual victims demonstrates\u00a0our capacity to care for those\u00a0in need. All this requires is a point of connection, like when identifiable victim tugs at our emotions because we\u00a0have something in common with them. People like that feeling<\/a> of making a difference, of seeing their donation have a clear and measurable impact, and of connecting with another identifiable human being in some small way (Pinantoan, 2013). Perhaps, in this way, the Identifiable Victim Effect is evidence of our humanity. Yet it keeps thousands of unidentifiable victims from getting the help they need by giving preference to the few that media and charities choose to highlight.<\/p>\n As charitable humans, it is our responsibility to seek justice and aid for all people, not just those who make it into the limelight. So what can we do to bring the most good for the most people? Studies haven\u2019t answered that yet. For you and me, the responsibility is simple: think rationally and carefully about where your donations will do the most good, and don\u2019t stop giving entirely. There are plenty of suffering victims in this world who need your help, whether you\u2019ve heard their individual stories or not.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n References<\/p>\n Genevsky, A., Va\u00a8stfja\u00a8ll, D., Slovic, P. and Knutson, B. (2013). Neural Underpinnings of the Identifiable Victim Effect: Affect Shifts Preferences for Giving. The Journal of Neuroscience<\/em>, 17188. Retrieved from: https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC3807035\/<\/p>\n Jenni, K. E. and Loewenstein, G. (1997). Explaining the Identifiable Victim Effect. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty<\/em>, Vol. 14, No. 3. Retrieved from: https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1023\/A:1007740225484<\/a><\/p>\n Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005). The ‘Identified Victim’ Effect: An Identified Group, or Just a Single Individual?\u00a0Journal Of Behavioral Decision Making<\/em>,\u00a018<\/em>(3), 157-167. Retrieved from: doi:10.1002\/bdm.492<\/p>\n<\/a>