Superb article in the Washington Post about the puzzling way the human mind approaches human need: Beyond Comprehension: We know that genocide and famine are greater tragedies than a lost dog. At least, we think we do.
Here's the key point for fundraisers:
The reason human beings seem to care so little about mass suffering and death is precisely because the suffering is happening on a mass scale. The brain is simply not very good at grasping the implications of mass suffering. Americans would be far more likely to step forward if only a few people were suffering or a single person were in pain.
Journalists sometimes talk about compassion fatigue, the inability of people to respond to suffering when the scale or length of the suffering exceeds some astronomical number. But [the research] suggests that compassion fatigue starts when the number of victims rises from one to two. [emphasis added]
You might well ask, Why did so many people respond to Haiti? Doesn't that contradict these findings? I don't think there's any contradiction at all. A large-scale disaster like Haiti prompts an outpouring of giving because two things happen:
- The news media, attracted by the size and scope of the disaster, swarm all over it and blanket all media with stories about the human cost of the disaster.
- Video, photos, and stories of suffering individuals become inescapable. This motivates high levels of giving, both from people who are already active donor and from others who seldom or never give.
The rest of the time, you can hardly raise money for disasters. Because without the media telling the stories, a disaster is just a big number. Which is precisely not what motivates giving.
Disaster-response experts say there are about 400 humanitarian disasters worldwide every year. But on average, we have less than one media-promoted disaster per year.
So if you're working outside those unusual events, it's up to you to put a human face on the problem. And not get suckered into the numbers game.
