Popular in Economics

Economics

Gender and Economics

University of California Santa Barbara Shelly Lundberg

Banks and Policy Organisations

Greening the financial sector

European Investment Bank Matteo Ferrazzi

Economic History

Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle

Boston College James E. Anderson

Economic Inequalities

Visions of Inequality

City University of New York Branko Milanovic

Economics

School Finance Equalization Increases Intergenerational Mobility

Yale University Barbara Biasi

Economics

Olivier Blanchard on U.S. Pandemic-Era Inflation

Peterson Institute for International Economics Olivier Blanchard

Self- versus social image in warm-glow giving

View more insights in Social Sciences - Economics - Behavioral economics

View more figures from University of Sydney

View the page of Jonathan Levy

Read the Study

Charities often aim to inspire donations by appealing to donors’ altruism. However, previous studies indicate that around 50% of people are also driven by “warm glow”—the personal satisfaction gained from giving. This sense of fulfillment stems from enhancing one’s self-image or being perceived favorably by others (social image). Jonathan Levy discusses the roles of self-image and social image in warm-glow giving.

Image courtesy of interviewee. September 5, 2024

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

This video discusses "warm glow giving," which is a form of donation where individuals receive personal satisfaction from the act of giving. This video behavior can be influenced by self-image and social image concerns. The study differentiates between pure altruism (giving solely to benefit others) and pure egoism (giving for personal gain), positioning warm glow giving between these two extremes as "impure altruism."

The research indicates that while both self-image and social image are important, self-image is the primary motivator for warm glow giving. The study involved an experiment with 960 participants who were put in various scenarios to assess their donation behavior. Findings revealed that about 50% of participants made donations regardless of the treatment, and those in conditions that activated social image concerns donated significantly more than those in neutral conditions. This video suggests that self-image drives the decision to donate, while social image influences the amount donated.

The implications are significant for charities and policymakers aiming to enhance charitable contributions. Strategies that emphasize the personal satisfaction derived from giving could be effective, and future research could further explore the long-term impacts of these strategies in different fundraising contexts.

Language:

Export as PDF

Export as PDF
Here are five key points from the video regarding warm glow giving and its motivations:

1. **Definition of Warm Glow Giving**: Warm glow giving is characterized as a type of donation where individuals experience personal satisfaction from the act of giving itself, even if their contributions do not significantly impact the outcome.

2. **Motivations Behind Giving**: The video distinguishes between pure altruism, which is selfless and aimed solely at benefiting others, and pure egoism, which focuses entirely on personal gain. Warm glow giving is positioned between these two, motivated by a desire to help others while also deriving emotional satisfaction from the act of giving.

3. **Role of Self-Image and Social Image**: Research indicates that individuals give in part to maintain a positive self-image and to enhance their social image. The study aimed to compare the effects of these two motivations on warm glow giving.

4. **Experimental Findings**: The study involved 960 participants and revealed that self-image is the primary driver of warm glow giving. While social image concerns do influence the amount donated, self-image significantly motivates the decision to donate.

5. **Implications for Charities and Policy**: The findings suggest that strategies emphasizing the benefits of self-image, such as the personal satisfaction gained from giving, could be effective in encouraging charitable donations. Future research is encouraged to explore how these motivations might vary in different fundraising convideos.

Export as PDF
Here are the key quotes from the video:

1. "Anglow giving is a form of donation where individuals derive personal satisfaction from the act of giving itself."

2. "Pure altruism involves giving solely to benefit others, without any concern for personal gain."

3. "You can think of pure egoism as being the other end of that spectrum...it involves giving primarily for personal gain."

4. "Warlow giving you can think of as being somewhere in between these two extremes."

5. "This study contributes to the literature by directly comparing the effects of self-image and social image as a way to motivate warm glow giving."

6. "Our findings suggest that while both factors are important, self-image is the primary driver of warm glow giving."

7. "Participants were asked to play a modified version of the dictator game where they could donate part of an endowment that we gave them."

8. "The amount donated was significantly higher in the treatments where social image was activated."

9. "This suggests that while self-image drives the decision to donate, social image influences the amount given."

10. "Anglow giving is primarily driven by self-image concerns, but social image can enhance the amount donated."

11. "We encourage strategies that highlight self-image or the benefits of self-image, such as promoting the personal satisfaction of giving."

These quotes summarize the primary concepts and findings of the study regarding the motivations behind warm glow giving and the influences of self-image and social image.

Export as PDF
Here are some articles that are similar in topic to the video, which discusses the motivations behind charitable giving, specifically focusing on "warm glow" giving, self-image, and social image.

1. **"The Psychology of Charitable Giving: Why We Do It and Why We Don't"** - This article delves into the insights about motivational factors that influence donations, including emotional satisfaction and personal identity.

2. **"Altruism vs. Egoism in Charitable Giving: Understanding Donor Behavior"** - A comprehensive analysis of the spectrum of altruism and egoism in donor behaviors, illustrating how personal benefits can play a role in charitable actions.

3. **"Self-Perception and Charitable Giving: Exploring the Role of Image"** - An exploration of how individuals’ perceptions of themselves and how they want to be perceived by others impact their decisions to donate to charity.

4. **"Effects of Social Pressure on Philanthropic Behavior"** - This study examines how social influence, such as peer pressure and public recognition, affects the amount and frequency of charitable donations.

5. **"The Role of Emotional and Moral Motivations in Charitable Giving"** - An investigation into how feelings of guilt, empathy, and moral obligation drive individuals to donate and the psychological benefits they receive from their actions.

6. **"Donor Dynamics: The Interplay of Self and Social Identity in Philanthropy"** - This article discusses the interconnectedness of self-image and social image and how both factors motivate individuals to contribute to charitable causes.

7. **"Warm Glow Giving and Its Implications for Nonprofits"** - An examination of how understanding the concept of "warm glow" can aid nonprofits in crafting campaigns that resonate with potential donors' motivations.

These articles would provide deeper insights into the themes present in your given video and further enrich the discussion surrounding charitable giving behaviors and motivations.

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.065 --> 00:02.365
So Anglow giving is a form of donation

00:02.375 --> 00:03.965
where individuals derive

00:04.525 --> 00:06.925
personal satisfaction from the act of giving itself.

00:07.625 --> 00:10.725
Uh, you can see examples of this when you think about voting

00:10.865 --> 00:14.725
and elections and, electronic vehicle purchases.

00:15.425 --> 00:18.325
Uh, these are situations where people

00:19.505 --> 00:24.125
do not necessarily have a strong impact on the outcome.

00:24.785 --> 00:27.565
Um, yet they still make the decision

00:27.665 --> 00:30.845
to act in these situations and and donate their effort.

00:31.385 --> 00:34.125
Uh, our study examines how self-image

00:34.125 --> 00:37.805
and social image concerns could influence influence this

00:37.925 --> 00:41.285
type of giving pure altruism involves giving solely

00:41.425 --> 00:44.765
to benefit others, without any concern

00:44.985 --> 00:46.045
for personal gain.

00:46.665 --> 00:48.365
And you can think of pure egoism

00:48.505 --> 00:50.405
as being the other end of that spectrum.

00:50.825 --> 00:54.765
So, that involves giving primarily for personal gain,

00:55.385 --> 00:57.725
such as enhancing one's self-image

00:57.945 --> 01:01.085
or social image warlow giving you can think of

01:01.085 --> 01:03.445
as being somewhere in between these two extremes.

01:04.065 --> 01:06.605
Uh, so it's a form of impure altruism

01:06.615 --> 01:08.565
where individuals are motivated

01:09.345 --> 01:10.925
by both the desire to help others.

01:11.265 --> 01:12.685
So this altruism

01:13.225 --> 01:16.325
and the emotional satisfaction they receive from the

01:16.385 --> 01:17.405
act of giving itself.

01:17.555 --> 01:20.245
This egoism self-image refers

01:20.265 --> 01:23.365
to an individual's perception of themselves.

01:23.575 --> 01:27.725
While social image pertains to how others perceive them,

01:28.085 --> 01:31.325
research has shown that individuals may give to

01:31.965 --> 01:34.565
maintain a positive self, self-image, for example,

01:34.745 --> 01:36.725
to avoid guilt,

01:37.505 --> 01:40.045
or to enhance their social image, for example,

01:40.045 --> 01:41.565
gaining the respect from others.

01:42.595 --> 01:45.085
This study contributes to the literature by

01:45.645 --> 01:48.765
directly comparing the effects of self-image

01:48.985 --> 01:53.405
and social image as a way to motivate warm glow giving.

01:53.665 --> 01:56.885
And we do so using a novel experimental design.

01:57.665 --> 02:01.125
Uh, and our findings from our experiments suggest

02:01.125 --> 02:02.885
that while both factors are important,

02:03.455 --> 02:07.085
self-image is the primary driver of warm glow giving.

02:07.425 --> 02:11.885
We recruited 960 US adults

02:12.115 --> 02:14.445
through Amazon Mechanical Turk.

02:15.165 --> 02:18.885
Participants were asked to play a modified version

02:18.905 --> 02:22.605
of the dictator game where they could donate part of

02:23.405 --> 02:25.905
an endowment that we gave them, which was equivalent

02:25.905 --> 02:26.985
to two US dollars.

02:27.375 --> 02:29.465
They could donate this,

02:29.565 --> 02:32.065
or part of their endowment to a charity of their choice

02:32.575 --> 02:35.305
with donations being crowded out by us.

02:35.525 --> 02:39.945
The experimenters, the experiment had three treatments,

02:40.565 --> 02:42.465
one with no social image influence.

02:42.845 --> 02:45.785
So in that treatment, we had a neutral image,

02:45.785 --> 02:48.625
appear on the screen as they made their donation decision.

02:49.045 --> 02:52.745
It was effectively just a, a picture of a gray circle,

02:53.205 --> 02:57.105
and one where participants were watched by a video recording

02:57.205 --> 02:58.865
of eyes on

02:58.865 --> 03:01.205
The screen as they make their donation decision.

03:01.345 --> 03:04.805
And this was to activate their social image concerns.

03:05.505 --> 03:07.765
Um, and then finally we had a third treatment

03:07.765 --> 03:11.685
where participants could choose to turn off this recording

03:11.685 --> 03:13.845
of eyes as they make the donation decision.

03:14.945 --> 03:17.685
So by comparing donations in the treatments

03:18.035 --> 03:20.565
with the watching eyes to the treatment

03:20.565 --> 03:22.205
with this neutral image on the screen,

03:22.625 --> 03:25.365
we could isolate the effects of self-image

03:25.365 --> 03:27.285
and social image on donation behavior.

03:27.635 --> 03:30.925
Essentially, whatever they donated in this neutral

03:31.615 --> 03:34.965
image treatment was the effect of self-image

03:34.965 --> 03:36.885
because there was no social image

03:37.115 --> 03:38.485
concern for them to worry about.

03:38.865 --> 03:41.325
And then by making this comparison across treatments,

03:41.325 --> 03:43.525
we could see the effect of social image.

03:43.715 --> 03:47.805
Approximately 50% of participants made a positive donation

03:48.485 --> 03:50.965
regardless of the treatment that we looked at.

03:51.705 --> 03:55.485
Uh, secondly, we found that,

03:55.505 --> 03:58.285
the amount donated was significantly higher in the

03:58.285 --> 04:00.805
treatments where social image was activated.

04:00.895 --> 04:04.365
These watching eye treatments, this suggests

04:04.365 --> 04:07.005
that while self-image drives the decision to donate,

04:07.305 --> 04:09.965
social image influences the amount given.

04:10.745 --> 04:13.485
Uh, and interestingly, even when participants chose

04:13.505 --> 04:17.845
to turn off the eyes, this social image effect was so strong

04:17.865 --> 04:21.205
and persisted, indicating that just the knowledge

04:21.265 --> 04:23.685
of being watched could actually influence behavior.

04:24.525 --> 04:28.565
Anglow giving is primarily driven by self-image concerns,

04:29.265 --> 04:32.405
but social image can enhance the amount donated.

04:33.385 --> 04:36.365
And this has important implications for charities

04:36.505 --> 04:39.725
and policy makers who aim to increase charitable giving.

04:40.625 --> 04:44.565
Uh, we encourage strategies that highlight self-image

04:45.225 --> 04:47.245
or the benefits of self-image, such

04:47.245 --> 04:51.165
as promoting the personal satisfaction of giving,

04:51.345 --> 04:55.165
as these could be effective in encouraging donations,

04:55.545 --> 04:58.605
and future research could explore the long-term effects

04:58.705 --> 04:59.845
of these strategies

04:59.845 --> 05:03.005
and how they might be adapted for different contexts.

05:03.425 --> 05:06.605
For example, online versus in-person fundraising.

00:00 - So Anglow giving is a form of donation where individuals derive personal satisfaction from the act of giving itself. you can see examples of this when you think about voting and elections and, electronic vehicle purchases. these are situations where people

00:19 - do not necessarily have a strong impact on the outcome. yet they still make the decision to act in these situations and and donate their effort. our study examines how self-image and social image concerns could influence influence this type of giving pure altruism involves giving solely to benefit others, without any concern for personal gain. And you can think of pure egoism as being the other end of that spectrum.

00:50 - So, that involves giving primarily for personal gain, such as enhancing one's self-image or social image warlow giving you can think of as being somewhere in between these two extremes. so it's a form of impure altruism where individuals are motivated by both the desire to help others. So this altruism and the emotional satisfaction they receive from the act of giving itself.

01:17 - This egoism self-image refers to an individual's perception of themselves. While social image pertains to how others perceive them, research has shown that individuals may give to maintain a positive self, self-image, for example, to avoid guilt, or to enhance their social image, for example, gaining the respect from others. This study contributes to the literature by directly comparing the effects of self-image

01:48 - and social image as a way to motivate warm glow giving. And we do so using a novel experimental design. and our findings from our experiments suggest that while both factors are important, self-image is the primary driver of warm glow giving. We recruited 960 US adults through Amazon Mechanical Turk. Participants were asked to play a modified version of the dictator game where they could donate part of an endowment that we gave them, which was equivalent

02:25 - to two US dollars. They could donate this, or part of their endowment to a charity of their choice with donations being crowded out by us. The experimenters, the experiment had three treatments, one with no social image influence. So in that treatment, we had a neutral image, appear on the screen as they made their donation decision. It was effectively just a, a picture of a gray circle, and one where participants were watched by a video recording

02:57 - of eyes on The screen as they make their donation decision. And this was to activate their social image concerns. and then finally we had a third treatment where participants could choose to turn off this recording of eyes as they make the donation decision. So by comparing donations in the treatments with the watching eyes to the treatment with this neutral image on the screen, we could isolate the effects of self-image

03:25 - and social image on donation behavior. Essentially, whatever they donated in this neutral image treatment was the effect of self-image because there was no social image concern for them to worry about. And then by making this comparison across treatments, we could see the effect of social image. Approximately 50% of participants made a positive donation regardless of the treatment that we looked at. secondly, we found that,

03:55 - the amount donated was significantly higher in the treatments where social image was activated. These watching eye treatments, this suggests that while self-image drives the decision to donate, social image influences the amount given. and interestingly, even when participants chose to turn off the eyes, this social image effect was so strong and persisted, indicating that just the knowledge of being watched could actually influence behavior. Anglow giving is primarily driven by self-image concerns,

04:29 - but social image can enhance the amount donated. And this has important implications for charities and policy makers who aim to increase charitable giving. we encourage strategies that highlight self-image or the benefits of self-image, such as promoting the personal satisfaction of giving, as these could be effective in encouraging donations, and future research could explore the long-term effects of these strategies and how they might be adapted for different contexts.

05:03 - For example, online versus in-person fundraising.

Faculti AI can make mistakes