Group Donors With Beneficiaries

Grouping underlies empathy.

In the past, I’ve argued that gestalt principles of grouping – similarity, proximity, containment – are key drivers of empathy: If you group yourself with another person, your brain will blur your identities. Subconsciously, you feel compelled to help this person because it feels like you’re helping yourself (see my book The Tangled Mind).

How to Apply

• Describe Similarities. We help people who resemble us — e.g., people donated more money to beneficiaries with a similar first name (Bekkers, 2010).

• Describe a Nearby Location. If somebody dies across the world, you don’t blink an eye. But if somebody dies across the street, suddenly it feels impactful. Indeed, people donate to beneficiaries that seem physically closer to them (Touré-Tillery & Fishbach, 2017).
• Establish Localized Offices. Local donations seem more effective because people confuse their sensory experience: "...a snowball thrown from 10 feet away will hurt more than one thrown from 50 feet away…[likewise] people expect charitable donations to have a greater impact on nearby (vs. faraway) recipients” (Touré-Tillery & Fishbach, 2017).
• Broaden Locales to Include Donors. Suppose that a disaster is sweeping across Oregon. A resident of Washington (which is next to Oregon) will feel protected because the geographic border feels like a rigid border (Mishra & Mishra, 2010). Need donations from nearby states? Broaden the locale (e.g., say “northwest” instead of “Oregon”) so that you merge donors into the same group.
• Emphasize Their Geographic Mobility. People are more likely to donate to distant causes if they moved geographically at least once in their life (Wang et al., 2021). Moving helps you identify with distant people. You are no longer a resident of California; you are a resident of the world.

• Bekkers, R. H. (2010). George gives to geology Jane: The name letter effect and incidental similarity cues in fundraising. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 15(2), 172-180.
• Mishra, A., & Mishra, H. (2010). Border bias: The belief that state borders can protect against disasters. Psychological science, 21(11), 1582-1586.
• Touré-Tillery, M., & Fishbach, A. (2017). Too far to help: The effect of perceived distance on the expected impact and likelihood of charitable action. Journal of personality and social psychology, 112(6), 860.
• Wang, Y., Kirmani, A., & Li, X. (2021). Not too far to help: Residential mobility, global identity, and donations to distant beneficiaries. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(6), 878-889.