Brain Research Suggests ‘Neural Reward’ for Charitable Donors

Should fund raisers tout the psychological benefits of charitable giving?

A team of researchers from the University of Oregon suggests there may be a scientific basis for that argument.

Using brain-imaging technology, the researchers found that giving to charity triggers the same “warm glow” that people experience when they sate their hunger or socialize with friends.

In the study, first published in Science, 19 female students were given $100, then examined as they participated in a number of financial transactions.

The student volunteers experienced a rush as they watched their money go to a local food bank through a mandatory, tax-like contribution. The volunteers got an even bigger charge when they gave their cash away voluntarily.

“People get a neural reward from giving their money to charity,” said Ulrich Mayr, a psychology professor and one of three authors of the report.

Results Varied

Not everyone, however, derived the same pleasure from donating. About half the participants, deemed “altruists,” got a bigger charge when they gave away their money than when they received it.

But a second group, the “egoists,” experienced more pleasure when they held on to the money. The altruists gave away nearly twice as much cash as the egoists.

That finding makes it possible to predict the likelihood that people will donate, the researchers said. But such knowledge isn’t likely to help charities any time soon.

Using brain-imaging machines is expensive, and subjects must remain motionless in the machines for an hour. One jerk of the head can mean that the experiment has to start all over again.

Another piece of evidence from the study, however, could give fund raisers some insights into how to solicit donations, according to the researchers.

They found that people had two different motives for giving — “pure altruism” and “warm glow altruism.” “Pure altruists” enjoyed giving even through taxation, simply because they knew their money was going to help other people. But people who were motivated more by the “warm glow” enjoyed giving because of their own role in helping a charity.

“It might be a good idea to address those different motives,” said Mr. Mayr. People who are motivated primarily by “pure altruism” might be more responsive to charity appeals that focused on the impact of donations on a specific cause, he said, while people who were driven by “warm glow altruism” might be more likely to give if they felt their donations would be recognized publicly.

A ‘Habit’

The study might also lend some support to the assumption that first-time donors are the most difficult to woo.

“Fund raisers often say people need to get into the habit of giving,” said William T. Harbaugh, an associate professor of economics and an author of the report. “Our evidence supports that, because people might not know how much of a good feeling they’ll get from giving until they actually try it.”

Altruism, however, has its limits. The volunteers in the study gave away 10 percent less money willingly than they did through the automatic approach.

For all the study’s implications, the researchers and other experts cautioned against extrapolating too much from its findings.

“Giving on the individual or the societal scale is extremely complex,” said Emily R. Murphy, a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford University’s center for biomedical ethics. “The neuroscience piece is very interesting, but it’s not a good idea to base policy on any one factor.”

Next, the University of Oregon professors hope to build on their research by conducting similar studies on men and on older people and on reactions to giving to different causes.

“It’s probably the case that the more abstract a particular cause, the less easy it is for people to envision what is going to happen with their donations and the harder it will be for people to get the anticipated reward activity,” said Mr. Mayr.