IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v15y2020i4p509-516_4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Donors vastly underestimate differences in charities’ effectiveness

Author

Listed:
  • Caviola, Lucius
  • Schubert, Stefan
  • Teperman, Elliot
  • Moss, David
  • Greenberg, Spencer
  • Faber, Nadira S.

Abstract

Some charities are much more cost-effective than other charities, which means that they can save many more lives with the same amount of money. Yet most donations do not go to the most effective charities. Why is that? We hypothesized that part of the reason is that people underestimate how much more effective the most effective charities are compared with the average charity. Thus, they do not know how much more good they could do if they donated to the most effective charities. We studied this hypothesis using samples of the general population, students, experts, and effective altruists in five studies. We found that lay people estimated that among charities helping the global poor, the most effective charities are 1.5 times more effective than the average charity (Studies 1 and 2). Effective altruists, in contrast, estimated the difference to be factor 50 (Study 3) and experts estimated the factor to be 100 (Study 4). We found that participants donated more to the most effective charity, and less to an average charity, when informed about the large difference in cost-effectiveness (Study 5). In conclusion, misconceptions about the difference in effectiveness between charities is thus likely one reason, among many, why people donate ineffectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Caviola, Lucius & Schubert, Stefan & Teperman, Elliot & Moss, David & Greenberg, Spencer & Faber, Nadira S., 2020. "Donors vastly underestimate differences in charities’ effectiveness," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(4), pages 509-516, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:4:p:509-516_4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500007452/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:4:p:509-516_4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.