Cassandra Margot Chapman

Nonprofit humanitarian imagery has long sparked ethical concerns, yet these critiques often overlook how such images are received by potential donors—even though donor support is essential to nonprofit success. Most work seeking to understand ethical imagery has been largely conceptual or focused on single image attributes. To understand holistically how potential donors perceive humanitarian imagery, we surveyed a large sample of U.S. residents ( N = 1990) and asked them to evaluate 186 real images used by an international humanitarian aid nonprofit. The findings revealed clear patterns in what Western audiences consider ethical. Positive portrayals of children (such as smiling) led to higher ethical ratings, while images showing malnutrition diminished them. Photos featuring smiling aid workers (regardless of ethnicity) also boosted ethical perceptions. Some of these patterns echo existing scholarly critiques, such as concerns about depicting suffering, while others diverge from prior arguments, including positive portrayals of aid workers. Together, results suggest that donor perceptions of ethical imagery may not fully align with theoretical critiques, highlighting the need to integrate audience perspectives into ongoing ethical debates. To resonate ethically with potential donors, international nonprofits should consider moving away from negative stereotypes and instead highlighting the positive impact of their work. International nonprofits can use these findings to refine their image selection processes and inform their ethical guidelines.

Effective altruists argue that charitable giving is over-influenced by empathic responses and should instead be guided by cost-benefit analyses about the effectiveness of giving. To provide insight into the extent to which empathy and effectiveness are associated with charitable giving in the population, two meta-analyses are conducted, synthesising 416 effect sizes from 124 papers sampling 74,797 participants. Here we show that effectiveness, r = 0.34, SE = 0.04, 95%CIs [0.28, 0.40], and empathy, r = 0.25, SE = 0.02, CIs [0.21, 0.29], both positively relate to charitable giving overall. However, prediction intervals reveal significant heterogeneity. Moderation analyses reveal one crucial caveat to the overall association between effectiveness and charitable giving: although the mean effect is relatively large when effectiveness is measured, r = 0.42, CIs [0.35, 0.48], manipulated effectiveness has a weak effect, r = 0.03, CIs [−0.10, 0.17]. Our findings suggest that while people may self-perceive as effective altruists, they give like empathic ones, a disjunction that calls for deeper causal investigation.

Charitable giving is essential for supporting collective action on various social and environmental problems. Social norms are known to sometimes affect giving, but not always. In this multilevel meta-analysis, we aggregate data from 113 independent samples from research involving 100,469 people in 22 countries to understand the extent to which social norms influence charitable giving ( r = .18, p < .001). We test a range of theoretical, methodological, and sample moderators to understand the conditions under which norms may be most effective at promoting giving. The relationship was stronger for injunctive than descriptive norms, when the norm referent was friends and family (vs. no referent or another ingroup), for internalized (vs. externally presented) norms, and potentially when the giving behavior was observed by others. Norms appear effective for most people, and especially for younger people and in non-WEIRD and collectivist contexts. Effects, however, were only found in published research and non-preregistered studies.

Charitable giving is a socially desirable behavior, and therefore prone to misreporting. In this article, we survey two decades of published research to understand the extent to which objective measures, capturing observed behavior, are used in philanthropy research. A systematic review of 437 articles found that 73% included at least one subjective (i.e., self-reported) measure and only 33% included at least one objective (i.e., observed behavior) measure. Objective measurement was more common in economics journals, research conducted in Western Europe, and studies using archival or experimental methods; and especially uncommon in nonprofit studies journals and survey research. We also generate an inventory of the diverse ways that charitable giving has been measured, both subjectively and objectively, as a resource for philanthropy scholars. Finally, we close with recommendations for future research detailing when and how we can include more objective measurement of charitable giving.

Incentives are sometimes offered to encourage charitable donations. Diverse incentives have been used and studied; however, there has been no overarching analysis of their effectiveness and the conditions under which they work best. To rectify this, we systematically review research on incentives for charitable giving published between 1980 and 2022. We synthesize evidence from 153 unique studies and integrate them into a new framework for conceptualizing incentives as material versus social in nature and self- versus other-benefiting. Some incentives are generally effective (e.g., tax rewards, rebates, match offers, recognition), whereas others have limited effect or may even backfire (e.g., thank you gifts). Turning to the future, we outline a research agenda with four theoretical propositions that warrant further investigation. In doing so, we lay the foundation for new theorizing on the effectiveness of incentives in nonprofit contexts and give practical guidance to fundraisers about which tactics should be most effective.

Portable display devices are increasingly important in the healthcare environment. Head-worn displays have efficiency benefits over similar devices, such as tablet computers, with the potential to provide handsfree access to information. However, it is currently unknown whether these devices affect observers' social perceptions of the users. We applied the Stereotype Content Model to examine whether the use of different types of portable display devices during a simulated video-conferencing consultation between two actor-clinicians differentially affected perceptions of clinician warmth (operationalised as perceived politeness, engagement and trustworthiness). Across three experiments (combined N = 745) we found that clinicians using head-worn displays are perceived as warmer than those using tablets. This effect was not moderated by the frequency (low vs. high) or type of interruptions (work-related vs. social) that occurred during the consultation. This suggests that head-worn displays may offer advantages over tablet computers for increasing perceptions of clinician warmth in clinical contexts.

Although nonprofit fundraisers face considerable critique about the ethics of their work, research has not typically examined the perspectives of fundraisers themselves. Applying Charitable Triad Theory, we propose that fundraising is inherently fraught with ethical tensions because it involves consideration of three key stakeholders: donors, beneficiaries, and fundraisers. We surveyed 69 professional fundraisers working in diverse nonprofits and asked them how they perceived the ethical landscape of their work. Thematic analyses revealed that fundraisers perceive ethical challenges relating to donors (e.g., soliciting from vulnerable donors), beneficiaries (e.g., how beneficiaries are depicted), and the fundraising organization itself (e.g., how funds are used). A quarter of respondents talked explicitly about the balancing act required to manage competing ethical demands. The triadic lens nuances theorizing on fundraising ethics by highlighting inherent ethical tensions. Findings can inform the development of codes of conduct that engage with the unique, triadic nature of fundraising ethics.

To enhance their effectiveness, nonprofit fundraisers may wish to harness the power of identification. Informed by Social Identity Theory and Charitable Triad Theory, we meta-analyzed 40 years of research on social identification and charitable giving to quantify the overall relationship and conducted meta-regressions to investigate moderators. Across 109 effect sizes drawn from 89,570 participants, we found a medium-sized relationship ( r = .29). Identification with other donors ( r = .23), beneficiaries ( r = .24), and fundraisers ( r = .36) were all positively associated with giving. Strength of identification ( r = .32) was more strongly associated with giving than was shared identity (i.e., in-group vs out-group target; r = .15). Effects were smaller for actual behavior ( r = .20) than for self-reported giving ( r = .33) and were only found when giving was mediated through charities ( r = .34) but not when giving directly to individuals ( r = .04). We include practical recommendations for ways that fundraisers can effectively leverage the power of identification in recruitment campaigns, copywriting, and selection of spokespeople.

Charities have invited public scorn through their use of chugging (or “charity mugging”) methods of fundraising, which involve interpersonal interaction between fundraisers and potential donors. It is not known how such mass market interpersonal fundraising methods are associated with donors giving over time. We analyzed transactional data from a natural experiment involving 213,404 donors to 45 charities to examine the relationship between interpersonal interaction at the time of donor recruitment and the long-term value of donations made by those donors. Multilevel analyses show that different fundraising methods are associated with different donation values. Specifically, mass market fundraising methods that involve interpersonal interaction are linked to lower donation values over time (β = −.12; equating to 59% fewer dollars donated on average in the second year), driven by much higher rates of cancelation (odds ratio [OR] = 3.14). We theorize several possible mechanisms through which interpersonal fundraising comes to generate these poorer outcomes.

Millions of charities compete for charitable donations, yet the underlying factors influencing individuals' preferences for specific causes remain relatively poorly understood. Building upon the ongoing scholarly debate about whether charitable behaviors are more altruistically or egoistically motivated, this study employs a self and other orientation framework to explore the preferences captured in a community survey (N = 987) to identify the various motivations relevant to donors' decision‐making processes. Our study contributes significantly to our understanding of charitable cause selection. First, it uncovers diverse motives directly endorsed by donors, offering insight into the multifaceted factors influencing preferences. Second, it unveils distinctive constellations of motives related to self and other orientations, shedding light on the underlying drivers of charitable actions. Third, it delineates the impact of various identity motives on charitable preferences. Specifically, we find that self‐oriented motives are associated with preferences for environmental and research causes, while other‐oriented motives exhibit a strong link with preferences for housing and development causes. Additionally, a combination of self and other motives shapes preferences for health, social services, emergency, and international causes. This complex interplay highlights that prosocial behavior is susceptible to a plurality of motives and cannot be solely understood through a binary distinction of altruism versus egoism. The study also contributes to the broader understanding of the psychology of charitable giving and has implications for fundraising design in a competitive market.