psychological barriers to effective altruism

File:EA&HumanMind SchubertCaviola.jpg

In general, humans are motivated to do good things in the world, whether that is through donations to charity, volunteering time for a cause, or just lending a hand to someone who needs help.{{Cite web |author-link=Charities Aid Foundation |date=2023 |title=CAF World Giving Index 2023 |url=https://www.cafonline.org/docs/default-source/about-us-research/wgi_report_2023_final.pdf?sfvrsn=402a5447_2 |access-date=14 November 2023 |website=Charities Aid Foundation (CAF)}}{{Cite web |author-link=Charities Aid Foundation |date=2022 |title=World Giving Index 2022: A global view of giving trends |url=https://www.cafonline.org/docs/default-source/about-us-research/caf_world_giving_index_2022_210922-final.pdf |access-date=10 November 2023 |website=Charities Aid Foundation (CAF)}} In 2022, approximately 4.2 billion people donated their money, time, or helped a stranger. Donating money to charity is especially substantial. For instance, 2% of the GDP of the United States goes to charitable organizations—a total of more than $450 billion in annual donations.{{Cite book |title=Giving USA 2020: The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2019. |publisher=Giving USA Foundation |year=2020 |isbn=9780998746654}} Despite the human tendency and motivation to give and engage in altruistic behavior, research has shed light on an unequal motivation to give effectively.

Humans are motivated to give, but often not motivated to give most effectively. In the title of an article published in Nature Human Behaviour in 2020, Bethany Burum, Martin Nowak, and Moshe Hoffman termed this phenomenon {{em|ineffective altruism}}, that is, relatively less sensitivity to cost-effectiveness in altruistic behaviour.{{Cite book |last=Pummer |first=Theron |title=The Rules of Rescue: Cost, Distance and Effective Altruism |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2023 |isbn=9780190884147 |location=Oxford |pages=206–207 |language=English}} In the domain of business decisions, investors look for how much return they will get for each dollar they invest. However, when it comes to the domain of altruistic decision-making, this line of thinking is far less common. Most donors seem to prioritize giving to charitable organizations that spend the least possible amount on running costs in the hopes of having more of their donation reach the destination.{{Cite journal |last1=Lewis |first1=Joshua |last2=Small |first2=Deborah |date=2018 |editor-last=Gershoff |editor-first=Andrew |editor2-last=Kozinets |editor2-first=Robert |editor3-last=White |editor3-first=Tiffany |title=Ineffective Altruism: Giving Less When Donations Do More |url=https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/2412099/volumes/v46/NA-46 |journal=NA - Advances in Consumer Research |location=Duluth, Minnesota |publisher=Association for Consumer Research |volume=46 |pages=194–198}}{{Cite journal |last1=Caviola |first1=Lucius |last2=Faulmüller |first2=Nadira |last3=Everett |first3=Jim A. C. |last4=Savulescu |first4=Julian |last5=Kahane |first5=Guy |date=July 2014 |title=The evaluability bias in charitable giving: Saving administration costs or saving lives? |url=https://www.proquest.com/docview/1548669952 |journal=Judgment and Decision Making |language=English |volume=9 |issue=4 |pages=303–315 |doi=10.1017/S1930297500006185 |s2cid=18730753 |id={{ProQuest|1548669952}} |doi-access=free|pmid=25279024 |pmc=4179876 }}

File:Dr._Martin_Nowak.jpg is a professor at Harvard University whose research contributions include the theory of evolution and cooperation.]]

While plenty of studies in the behavioral sciences have demonstrated the cognitive and emotional limitations in charitable giving, some argue that the reasons behind ineffective giving run deeper.{{Cite journal |last1=Jaeger |first1=Bastian |last2=van Vugt |first2=Mark |date=April 2022 |title=Psychological barriers to effective altruism: An evolutionary perspective |journal=Current Opinion in Psychology |volume=44 |pages=130–134 |doi=10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.09.008 |pmid=34628365 |s2cid=238582556 |via=Elsevier Science Direct|doi-access=free }} A study by Martin Nowak and fellow academics at Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology suggested that the human tendency to ineffective altruism can be explained through evolutionary motives and evolutionary game theory. They argue that society rewards the act of giving but generally provides no motivation or incentive to give effectively. Past research suggests that altruistic motives are distorted by, among other things, parochialism, status seeking and conformity.{{Cite journal |last1=Panchanathan |first1=Karthik |last2=Boyd |first2=Robert |date=November 2004 |title=Indirect reciprocity can stabilize cooperation without the second-order free rider problem |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02978 |journal=Nature |language=en |volume=432 |issue=7016 |pages=499–502 |doi=10.1038/nature02978 |pmid=15565153 |bibcode=2004Natur.432..499P |s2cid=4373929 |issn=1476-4687|url-access=subscription }}

People are sensitive to effectiveness when they or their kin are at stake,{{Cite journal |last=Nowak |first=M. A. |date=2006 |title=Five rules for the evolution of cooperation |journal=Science |volume=314 |issue=5805 |pages=1560–1563 |doi=10.1126/science.1133755 |pmid=17158317 |pmc=3279745 |bibcode=2006Sci...314.1560N }} but not so much when confronted with a needy stranger.{{Cite journal |last=Hamilton |first=W. D. |date=September 1963 |title=The Evolution of Altruistic Behavior |url=https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/497114 |journal=The American Naturalist |language=en |volume=97 |issue=896 |pages=354–356 |doi=10.1086/497114 |s2cid=84216415 |issn=0003-0147 |via=The University of Chicago Press Journals|url-access=subscription }}{{Cite book |last=Darwin |first=C. |title=On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life |publisher=P. F. Collier & Son |year=1859}} Donors have been shown to respond to impact and efficacy when giving to themselves, but less so when donating to charity. While cost-effectiveness information of charities tends to be hard to evaluate,{{Cite journal |last1=Caviola |first1=Lucius |last2=Schubert |first2=Stefan |last3=Nemirow |first3=Jason |date=March 2020 |title=The many obstacles to effective giving |journal=Judgment and Decision Making |language=en |volume=15 |issue=2 |pages=159–172 |doi=10.1017/S1930297500007312 |issn=1930-2975 |doi-access=free }} studies have shown that people are less scope insensitive when the beneficiaries are family members.

Throughout human evolutionary history, residing in small, tightly-knit groups has given rise to prosocial emotions and intentions towards kin and ingroup members, rather than universally extending to those outside the group boundaries.{{Cite journal |last1=Aktipis |first1=Athena |last2=Cronk |first2=Lee |last3=Alcock |first3=Joe |last4=Ayers |first4=Jessica D. |last5=Baciu |first5=Cristina |last6=Balliet |first6=Daniel |last7=Boddy |first7=Amy M. |last8=Curry |first8=Oliver Scott |last9=Krems |first9=Jaimie Arona |last10=Muñoz |first10=Andrés |last11=Sullivan |first11=Daniel |last12=Sznycer |first12=Daniel |last13=Wilkinson |first13=Gerald S. |last14=Winfrey |first14=Pamela |date=July 2018 |title=Understanding cooperation through fitness interdependence |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0378-4 |journal=Nature Human Behaviour |language=en |volume=2 |issue=7 |pages=429–431 |doi=10.1038/s41562-018-0378-4 |pmid=31097813 |s2cid=49667807 |issn=2397-3374|hdl=1871.1/72e0524e-788d-4f93-90f8-a6f04369a2a7 |hdl-access=free }}{{Cite book |last=Greene |first=Joshua |title=Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them |publisher=Penguin Press |year=2013 |isbn=978-0-14-312605-8 |location=New York, NY |language=en}} Humans tend to exhibit parochial tendencies, showing concern for their in-groups, but not out-groups. This parochial inclination can hinder effective altruism, especially as a significant portion of human suffering occurs in distant regions.{{Cite book |last=Singer |first=Peter |title=The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty |publisher=Random House |year=2009 |isbn=978-1-4000-6710-7 |edition=1st |location=United States |language=en}}{{Cite journal |last=Bloom |first=Paul |date=January 2017 |title=Empathy and Its Discontents |journal=Trends in Cognitive Sciences |volume=21 |issue=1 |pages=24–31 |doi=10.1016/j.tics.2016.11.004 |pmid=27916513 |s2cid=3863278 |issn=1364-6613 |via=Elsevier Science Direct}} Despite the potential impact of donations in different parts of the world, individuals in rich and developed countries often view assistance to physically distant others as less important than helping those in close proximity. Contrary to maximizing impact and effectiveness with their donations, many individuals commit to donating money to local charities and organizations to which they have a personal connection, thus living by the notion of "charity begins at home."{{Cite web |last1=Adleberg |first1=Toni |last2=Surani |first2=Faiz |last3=GWWC |first3=Team |date=May 2021 |title=Charity begins at home; shouldn't we solve our own problems before helping others? |url=https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/blog/charity-begins-at-home-shouldnt-we-solve-our-own-problems-before-helping# |access-date=31 October 2023 |website=Giving What We Can}} Similarly, people are more inclined to help a needy child from their neighborhood rather than their city or country.{{Cite journal |last1=Kogut |first1=Tehila |last2=Ritov |first2=Ilana |last3=Rubaltelli |first3=Enrico |last4=Liberman |first4=Nira |date=September 2018 |title=How far is the suffering? The role of psychological distance and victims' identifiability in donation decisions |journal=Judgment and Decision Making |language=en |volume=13 |issue=5 |pages=458–466 |doi=10.1017/S1930297500008731 |issn=1930-2975 |doi-access=free |hdl=11577/3286801 |hdl-access=free }}

Humans assign value to their social status within a group for survival and reproduction. People tend to pursue high-status positions to enjoy benefits, such as desirable mating partners.{{Cite journal |last1=von Rueden |first1=Christopher R. |last2=Jaeggi |first2=Adrian V. |date=2016-09-27 |title=Men's status and reproductive success in 33 nonindustrial societies: Effects of subsistence, marriage system, and reproductive strategy |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |language=en |volume=113 |issue=39 |pages=10824–10829 |doi=10.1073/pnas.1606800113 |issn=0027-8424 |pmc=5047206 |pmid=27601650 |bibcode=2016PNAS..11310824V |doi-access=free }} Therefore, behaviors that can produce reputational benefits are desirable to enhance one's standing in society.{{Cite journal |last1=Schaller |first1=Mark |last2=Kenrick |first2=Douglas T. |last3=Neel |first3=Rebecca |last4=Neuberg |first4=Steven L. |date=June 2017 |title=Evolution and human motivation: A fundamental motives framework |url=https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.12319 |journal=Social and Personality Psychology Compass |language=en |volume=11 |issue=6 |doi=10.1111/spc3.12319 |issn=1751-9004 |via=Wiley|url-access=subscription }} Altruistic acts are generally viewed positively,{{Cite journal |last1=Durkee |first1=Patrick K. |last2=Lukaszewski |first2=Aaron W. |last3=Buss |first3=David M. |date=September 2020 |title=Psychological foundations of human status allocation |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |language=en |volume=117 |issue=35 |pages=21235–21241 |doi=10.1073/pnas.2006148117 |issn=0027-8424 |pmc=7474695 |pmid=32817486 |bibcode=2020PNAS..11721235D |doi-access=free }} yield social rewards, and are cumulative.{{Cite journal |last1=Ashraf |first1=Nava |last2=Bandiera |first2=Oriana |date=May 2017 |title=Altruistic Capital |url=https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.p20171097 |journal=American Economic Review |language=en |volume=107 |issue=5 |pages=70–75 |doi=10.1257/aer.p20171097 |issn=0002-8282 |via=American Economic Association}} However, effective altruism, that is, altruistic behavior that focuses on maximizing others' welfare, is often not socially rewarded.{{Cite journal |last1=Yudkin |first1=Daniel A. |last2=Prosser |first2=Annayah M. B. |last3=Crockett |first3=Molly J. |date=October 2019 |title=Actions speak louder than outcomes in judgments of prosocial behavior. |url=http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/emo0000514 |journal=Emotion |language=en |volume=19 |issue=7 |pages=1138–1147 |doi=10.1037/emo0000514 |pmid=30475039 |s2cid=53746918 |issn=1931-1516|url-access=subscription }} Evidence-based reasoning in charitable giving may be perceived negatively, as amoral, and so will reduce a person's likability.{{Cite web |last1=Montealegre |first1=Andres |last2=Bush |first2=Lance |last3=Moss |first3=David |last4=Pizarro |first4=David |last5=Jimenez-Leal |first5=William |date=2023 |title=Does Maximizing Good Make People Look Bad? |url=https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/2zbax/ |access-date=2023-11-22 |website=osf.io}} Some have even argued that the reputational costs incurred for engaging in effective giving explain people's aversion to prioritizing some causes over more impactful ones.

Many living organisms have demonstrated conformity,{{Cite journal |last1=Boyd |first1=Robert |last2=Richerson |first2=Peter J. |last3=Henrich |first3=Joseph |date=2011-06-28 |title=The cultural niche: Why social learning is essential for human adaptation |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |language=en |volume=108 |issue= Suppl 2|pages=10918–10925 |doi=10.1073/pnas.1100290108 |issn=0027-8424 |pmc=3131818 |pmid=21690340 |bibcode=2011PNAS..10810918B |doi-access=free }}{{Cite journal |last1=Muthukrishna |first1=Michael |last2=Morgan |first2=Thomas J. H. |last3=Henrich |first3=Joseph |date=2016-01-01 |title=The when and who of social learning and conformist transmission |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513815000586 |journal=Evolution and Human Behavior |volume=37 |issue=1 |pages=10–20 |doi=10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.05.004 |issn=1090-5138}} that is, the tendency to use dominant group norms (or descriptive norms) as guiding rules of behavior. Research on humans has also shown that social norms have the power to influence what others do.{{Cite journal |last1=Pike |first1=Thomas W. |last2=Laland |first2=Kevin N. |date=2010-08-23 |title=Conformist learning in nine-spined sticklebacks' foraging decisions |journal=Biology Letters |language=en |volume=6 |issue=4 |pages=466–468 |doi=10.1098/rsbl.2009.1014 |issn=1744-9561 |pmc=2936200 |pmid=20129948}} In the judgment and decision-making research, this observation has come to be known as the bandwagon effect. The power of this bias has also been demonstrated in the field of charitable giving. In fact, people have been shown to donate more, or to exhibit an increased likelihood to donate, when they perceived donating to charity as the social norm or the default choice.{{Cite journal |last1=Everett |first1=Jim A.C. |last2=Caviola |first2=Lucius |last3=Kahane |first3=Guy |last4=Savulescu |first4=Julian |last5=Faber |first5=Nadira S. |date=March 2015 |title=Doing good by doing nothing? The role of social norms in explaining default effects in altruistic contexts |journal=European Journal of Social Psychology |language=en |volume=45 |issue=2 |pages=230–241 |doi=10.1002/ejsp.2080 |issn=0046-2772 |doi-access=free }} Therefore, the fact that many people become increasingly in favor of donating to ineffective options, then society will see the creation of a norm for people to give ineffectively. As a result, people rely more strongly on their intuitions{{Cite journal |last1=Croson |first1=Rachel |last2=Handy |first2=Femida |last3=Shang |first3=Jen |date=June 2009 |title=Keeping up with the Joneses: The relationship of perceived descriptive social norms, social information, and charitable giving |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nml.232 |journal=Nonprofit Management and Leadership |language=en |volume=19 |issue=4 |pages=467–489 |doi=10.1002/nml.232 |issn=1048-6682|url-access=subscription }} which lead them to choosing to give ineffectively simply because they know that most others would do the same thing.

People often prioritize giving to charities that align with their subjectively preferred causes.{{Cite journal |last1=Berman |first1=Jonathan Z. |last2=Barasch |first2=Alixandra |last3=Levine |first3=Emma E. |last4=Small |first4=Deborah A. |date=May 2018 |title=Impediments to Effective Altruism: The Role of Subjective Preferences in Charitable Giving |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797617747648 |journal=Psychological Science |language=en |volume=29 |issue=5 |pages=834–844 |doi=10.1177/0956797617747648 |pmid=29659341 |s2cid=4901791 |issn=0956-7976 |via=Association for Psychological Science|url-access=subscription }} Commonly, people believe charity to be a subjective decision which should not be motivated by numbers, but by care for the cause given the lack of responsibility attributed to the effects of donations.{{Cite journal |last1=Lerner |first1=J.S. |last2=Tetlock |first2=P.E. |date=1999 |title=Accounting for the effects of accountability |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10087938/ |journal=Psychol Bull |volume=125 |issue=2 |pages=255–275 |doi=10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255 |pmid=10087938 |via=PubMed}} This aligns with the theory of warm-glow giving originally proposed by the economist James Andreoni. According to Andreoni (1990), individuals gain satisfaction from the act of giving but are not concerned about the benefits generated by their act.{{Cite journal |last=Andreoni |first=James |date=1990 |title=Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. |journal=The Economic Journal |volume=100 |issue=401 |pages=464–477|doi=10.2307/2234133 |jstor=2234133 |s2cid=6001457 }}

Moral circle expansion is the concept of increasing one's number and kind of subjects deserving of moral concern over time.{{Cite journal |last1=Anthis |first1=Jacy Reese |last2=Paez |first2=Eze |date=2021-06-01 |title=Moral circle expansion: A promising strategy to impact the far future |journal=Futures |volume=130 |pages=102756 |doi=10.1016/j.futures.2021.102756 |issn=0016-3287|doi-access=free |hdl=10230/54752 |hdl-access=free }} The establishment of one's moral circle depends on spatial, biological, and temporal proximity. For instance, many donors in WEIRD countries tend to favor charities that conduct work within their respective geographical boundaries. In terms of biological distance, people favor donating money to help humans instead of animals, even in cases when animals can have equal cognitive and suffering capacities.{{Cite journal |last1=Caviola |first1=Lucius |last2=Everett |first2=Jim A. C. |last3=Faber |first3=Nadira S. |date=June 2019 |title=The moral standing of animals: Towards a psychology of speciesism. |url=http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/pspp0000182 |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |language=en |volume=116 |issue=6 |pages=1011–1029 |doi=10.1037/pspp0000182 |pmid=29517258 |s2cid=3818419 |issn=1939-1315|hdl=10871/38607 |hdl-access=free |url-access=subscription }}{{Cite journal |last1=Caviola |first1=Lucius |last2=Kahane |first2=Guy |last3=Everett |first3=Jim A. C. |last4=Teperman |first4=Elliot |last5=Savulescu |first5=Julian |last6=Faber |first6=Nadira S. |date=May 2021 |title=Utilitarianism for animals, Kantianism for people? Harming animals and humans for the greater good. |url=http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/xge0000988 |journal=Journal of Experimental Psychology: General |language=en |volume=150 |issue=5 |pages=1008–1039 |doi=10.1037/xge0000988 |pmid=33074696 |issn=1939-2222|url-access=subscription }} The idea of temporal proximity relates to people's tendency to prefer helping current generations over future ones.{{Cite journal |last1=Schubert |first1=Stefan |last2=Caviola |first2=Lucius |last3=Faber |first3=Nadira S. |date=2019 |title=The Psychology of Existential Risk: Moral Judgments about Human Extinction |journal=Scientific Reports |volume=9 |issue=15100 |page=15100 |doi=10.1038/s41598-019-50145-9 |pmid=31636277 |bibcode=2019NatSR...915100S |doi-access=free |pmc=6803761 }}{{Cite book |last=MacAskill |first=William |title=What We Owe the Future |publisher=Basic Books |year=2022 |isbn=978-1541618626 |edition=1st |language=en}}

Scope neglect (or scope insensitivity) is the idea that people are numb to the number of victims in large, high-stake humanitarian situations.{{Cite journal |last=Yudkowsky |first=Eliezer |date=13 May 2007 |title=Scope Insensitivity |url=https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/2ftJ38y9SRBCBsCzy/scope-insensitivity |archive-url= |access-date=16 October 2023 |website=lesswrong.com}}{{Cite journal |last1=Dickert |first1=Stephan |last2=Västfjäll |first2=Daniel |last3=Kleber |first3=Janet |last4=Slovic |first4=Paul |date=September 2015 |title=Scope insensitivity: The limits of intuitive valuation of human lives in public policy. |journal=Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition |language=en |volume=4 |issue=3 |pages=248–255 |doi=10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.09.002 |issn=2211-369X|doi-access=free |hdl=1794/19441 |hdl-access=free }} Some research has compared this cognitive bias to the economic concept of diminishing marginal utility wherein people demonstrate a decreasing non-linear concern for individuals as the number of people increases.

Donors are averse to giving to charities that devote a lot of their expenses to administration{{Cite journal |last1=Gneezy |first1=U. |last2=Keenan |first2=E. A. |last3=Gneezy |first3=A. |date=2014-10-30 |title=Avoiding overhead aversion in charity |journal=Science |volume=346 |issue=6209 |pages=632–635 |doi=10.1126/science.1253932 |pmid=25359974 |bibcode=2014Sci...346..632G |s2cid=206557384 |issn=0036-8075}} or running costs. Several studies have demonstrated the ubiquitous effect of overhead aversion which is commonly attributed to people's conflation between overhead spending and charity cost-effectiveness (or impact). Furthermore, some have argued that when donors learn that a charity uses their donation to fund running costs, donors experience a diminished feeling of warm-glow, which is a significant driver of donation behavior.

File:QALY graph-en.svg

Intangible outcomes (such as health interventions, charity effectiveness) are hard to quantify, and many people doubt that they can every be quantified and compared. However, in disciplines such as health economics, health outcomes and interventions are quantified and evaluated using metrics such as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).{{Cite book |last1=Banerjee |first1=Abhijit V. |title=Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty |last2=Duflo |first2=Esther |publisher=PublicAffairs |year=2011 |isbn=978-1-58648-798-0 |location=United States |language=en}} In a similar vein, happiness economists have developed the concept of wellbeing-years (WELLBYs) which evaluates effectiveness in terms of life-years lived up to full life satisfaction.{{Cite journal |last1=De Neve |first1=Jan-Emmanuel |last2=Clark |first2=Andrew E. |last3=Krekel |first3=Christian |last4=Layard |first4=Richard |last5=O’Donnell |first5=Gus |date=2020-10-05 |title=Taking a wellbeing years approach to policy choice |url=https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3853 |journal=BMJ |language=en |volume=371 |pages=m3853 |doi=10.1136/bmj.m3853 |issn=1756-1833 |pmid=33020062|s2cid=222125497 |url-access=subscription }} Put simply, a WELLBY is given by:$$WELLBY\; =\; \{\; L\; \backslash times\backslash Delta\; W\; \}$$Where $L$ is the number of lives remaining from the region's life expectancy and $\backslash Delta\; W$ is the change in life satisfaction expected to result from a particular action or intervention.{{Cite web |last=Treasury |first=HM |date=2021 |title=Wellbeing Guidance for Appraisal: Supplementary Green Book Guidance |url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1005388/Wellbeing_guidance_for_appraisal_-_supplementary_Green_Book_guidance.pdf |access-date=11 November 2023 |website=HM Treasury}} Thus, charity cost-effectiveness analyses use a number of different measures grounded in academic research to quantify their impact, allowing direct comparisons of charities that address multiple causes.

The effective altruism movement does substantial work on identifying the world's most effective charities through charity evaluators such as GiveWell, Giving What We Can, and Animal Charity Evaluators. However, many people are unaware of these organizations and the charities they evaluate, and are strongly driven by emotional responses when estimating the effectiveness of a charity; choosing instead to prioritize those causes to which they have a personal connection.

{{Portal|Psychology|Society}}

{{columns-list|colwidth=22em|

• Altruism (ethics)
• Charitable organization
• Evidence-based policy
• List of cognitive biases
• Moral psychology
• Social preferences
• Social psychology

}}

{{Charity}}

{{Effective altruism}}

{{Authority control}}

Category:Wikipedia Student Program

Category:Effective altruism

Category:Moral psychology

Category:Social psychology