Undoubtedly, generous reader, you receive lots of charity appeal literature through the post. I counted six items last week alone, some with a free pen. Then came the e-mail from my daughter Madelaine, asking for sponsorship for Edinburgh's 'Race for Life' event in aid of Cancer Research UK.
Just a click of the mouse and I was on her personal sponsorship page. A few credit card details later it was done, and I even received a 'thank you' e-mail from 'Mad'. That this was addressed to 'Peter' rather than 'Dad', did give away that it was computer-generated, but it was acknowledgement nonetheless.
Few of us cannot have known a relative or friend with cancer or some other major disease. So it is hardly surprising that, according to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO), a quarter of us give to medical research.
Overall, they reckon two-thirds of UK adults give to charity, contributing to a total in 2003 alone of £7.1 billion.
Recent years have brought a number of initiatives such as Gift Aid and the Giving Campaign, aimed at fostering a culture of giving. Massive responses to emergency appeals such as the Tsunami disaster suggest many more out there feel they should help. Yet a lot of giving potential lays dormant much of the time.
But why do people give - and why do others not? What can be done to encourage more giving? This is the theme of a special seminar to be held at the NCVO as part of the ESRC's Social Science Week 2005. It will be led by Dr Tom Farsides, a social psychology lecturer at the University of Sussex, and Dr Sally Hibbert, a senior lecturer in marketing at Nottingham University Business School.
...charities may be able to tap into new and different sources of funds if they can understand how these people rationalise 'not giving' to their particular cause.
Though giving to charity is clearly a good thing to do, it is generally accepted that there is often an element of reward as well as altruism. Economic rewards, notably in the United States, are tax advantages and enhancing career prospects. Social and emotional rewards include public recognition, expecting a return gesture, satisfaction from showing gratitude for one's own well-being, feeling good about oneself, and relief from guilt and obligation.
Not giving brings guilt and threats to self-esteem, and a variety of psychological conditions and processes may underlie this decision. Perhaps some of us just do not subscribe to the core value that we should help other people, whilst others may feel that giving to charity is not the right way to help.
There are problems affecting the whole sector, such as lack of trust in charitable organisations. Certain methods of fundraising may also be putting off donors. Sally Hibbert concedes that there must be some with negative attitudes who genuinely believe the arguments they use for not giving, but there may be others for whom these are simply an excuse.
It is clear that, deep down, many nongivers actually share the positive attitudes of donors. And Sally argues that charities may be able to tap into new and different sources of funds if they can understand how these people rationalise 'not giving' to their particular cause.
The key, she says, may be the techniques of neutralisation. This is not something from Star Wars - neutralisation is actually a theory that helps us understand how people soften or eliminate the effects on themselves and others when they act differently from expected. Its techniques were used nearly 50 years ago to explain how juvenile delinquents insulate themselves from self-blame and the condemnation of others.
Next