Psychology of Giving
A charity that I give to pointed me at the Toyota Cars for Good program earlier this year. For 100 days, Toyota is giving away a new truck to a charity. The catch is that there are five potential charities per day, and a public vote decides the winner.
I signed up, voted for my charity, then voted a few other times throughout the summer when I thought of it and went about my business. I went back today and paged through some of the old votes to see who the winners were.
And I have discovered that for the most part, if you are a human charity up against an animal charity you have already lost.
I am an animal lover. Most of the charities I give time and/or money to are to do with animals. The charity I signed up to this thing for was an animal charity. (They won, which I am pleased about.)
One of the days the Chicago Zoological Society/Brookfield Zoo was up for the car. They were up against: a charity dedicated to helping families break the cycle of homelessness, an organization which assists people with special needs develop skills, a charity that supports people living with AIDS and their families, and Goodwill.
CZS won the car. I, personally, would not have voted for them on that day. I love animals. I really love Chicago. I still wouldn't have voted for them.
If you flick back through, loads and loads of animal charities have won the cars, even when up against some really strong candidates with really good, solid reasons for needing a car and a plan for how to use it.
I wonder if real giving is similar? Is more money given to animal charities? Are animal charities better at networking and haranguing their supporters into signing people up for something like this? Do people default to animals always? Or just when the result bears no financial consequence to themselves?
I signed up, voted for my charity, then voted a few other times throughout the summer when I thought of it and went about my business. I went back today and paged through some of the old votes to see who the winners were.
And I have discovered that for the most part, if you are a human charity up against an animal charity you have already lost.
I am an animal lover. Most of the charities I give time and/or money to are to do with animals. The charity I signed up to this thing for was an animal charity. (They won, which I am pleased about.)
One of the days the Chicago Zoological Society/Brookfield Zoo was up for the car. They were up against: a charity dedicated to helping families break the cycle of homelessness, an organization which assists people with special needs develop skills, a charity that supports people living with AIDS and their families, and Goodwill.
CZS won the car. I, personally, would not have voted for them on that day. I love animals. I really love Chicago. I still wouldn't have voted for them.
If you flick back through, loads and loads of animal charities have won the cars, even when up against some really strong candidates with really good, solid reasons for needing a car and a plan for how to use it.
I wonder if real giving is similar? Is more money given to animal charities? Are animal charities better at networking and haranguing their supporters into signing people up for something like this? Do people default to animals always? Or just when the result bears no financial consequence to themselves?