(Part 2 of 2)

Researchers have found that there is a darker side to our altruism. Sometimes we don't give to compelling causes, or we don't give as much as we could. Explore the reasons why, and how fundraisers can cope.

• The Diffusion of Responsibility

  Often called the "bystander effect," this human trait allows us to assume that someone else will do what needs to be done. Researchers in one experiment found that 70% of participants who are alone and heard sounds of distress from another person in an adjoining room responded and helped. When two participants were together, the response rate to the sounds of distress fell significantly, in one case to a mere 7%.

  We often let ourselves "off the hook" if we think that others will pick up the slack.

• The Sense of Fairness

  People seem to be extremely fine tuned to anything that seems unfair. Experiments have found that humans will go against their best interests if the situation violates their sense of fairness. For instance, two players in an experimental game are told that one of them will be given a sum of money such as $10 and must divide it with the second player. If the second person refuses the offer, then neither player gets anything.

  The first person, or the offerer, decides how much of the money he will offer to the receiver. Pure self-interest would dictate that the giver would offer the smallest possible amount and the receiver would agree to that, since getting something is better than nothing.

  However, if the receiver feels that the amount offered is "unfair," he or she is likely to refuse it, ensuring that no one gets anything. The deals that work out best are the ones where the money is divided equally, appealing to that sense of fairness.

  In the case of charitable giving, a donor's altruism may be depressed if he feels that other people are not doing their share. It doesn't seem fair to give, say, 10% of your income to charity if others are giving less or nothing.

• Money

Oddly enough, it has been found that thinking about money can also depress altruism. In an experiment, researchers primed one group of participants to think about money by, for instance, unscrambling phrases about money or by having piles of Monopoly money nearby. A control group got no reminders of money. The difference?

The money group showed greater independance from each other and more self-sufficiency by taking longer to ask for help when doing a difficult task; leaving a greater distance between chairs even when told to move closer so they could talk to one another; were more likely to choose a leisure activity that could be enjoyed alone; were less helpful to others; and gave less money when asked to donate some of the money they had been paid to participate in the experiment to a good cause.

The reason for this behavior on the part of the money group might be that once something can be bought, the need for communitarian cooperation is lessened. In the experiment, even the suggestion of money produced individualistic behavior rather than a feeling of community.

As fundraisers, we can think of ways to appeal to donors that avoid these pitfalls of human nature. We can:

• use powerful images and focus on one victim instead of several
• help create a feeling of community and fairness
• show the interconnection between ourselves and people thousands of miles away, and how we are all similar
• help donors understand that their gift is not just a "drop in the bucket"
• tell compelling personal stories
• use statistics in a concrete, human, and creative way
• offer ways to help that don't involve just giving money.

Most important, Singer says, is to create a culture of giving. Letting other people know about one's own charity can help others open their hearts and wallets. Groups of people, such as the 50% League, who agree to give away large amounts of their wealth, and organizations such as Bolder Giving can set new norms of giving. Giving Circles can create a community of givers who spur one another on.

Resetting the "default" on our systems could also help. Singer cites organ donor programs in some countries that assume you will donate unless you opt out, rather than depending on donors to opt in. Corporations that encourage employee giving could do something similar, as well as provide volunteer programs that allow employees to use work time to give back to the community.

Creating a culture of giving, Singer says, can go a long way toward encouraging human behavior that rises above its evolutionary patterns and uses rationality as well as emotion to make ethical decisions about who we will help and how.