"Compassion Collapse," or Why is it so Hard to Help Large Numbers of People who are Suffering?

Hurricane Michael. The Indonesian earthquake and tsunami. Hurricane Florence. Tropical Storm Mangkhut. Hurricane Florence. California and B.C. wildfires.

Those are the major natural disasters since July, this year.

Not included are other hurricanes, storms and flooding around the world, not to mention the terrible war and famine in Yemen and the ongoing crisis in Syria.

Is it any wonder people today are experiencing what’s called “compassion collapse?”

That’s the term used by Jamal Zaki, a professor of psychology at Stanford University and the director of the Stanford Social Neuroscience Laboratory ina recent article in The Atlantic.

Hearing about these disasters, and the numbers of people killed, injured or made homeless can leave people “strangely unmoved,” he writes.

If that’s your experience, he says “you wouldn’t be alone. For decades, social scientists have documented a troubling quirk in human empathy: People tend to care more about the suffering of single individuals, and less about the pain of many people.”

This “compassion collapse” is morally backwards, he suggests.

When many people die, our compassion and sympathy should rise, he says. Instead, it does the opposite; it dries up.

And why is that?

There are several explanations, according to Zaki.

Some psychologists say that it’s due to evolution. We can’t feel compassionate towards so many who are suffering; our brains are hardwired against it.

“Human empathy has been built, over thousands of generations, to respond to certain triggers—for instance, a child’s cry or an anguished face,” he writes.

“A single victim produces these signs of distress, which tug at us and inspire our help. Groups give us statistics, which land flat, triggering little and thus benefiting less from others’ compassion.”

(I wrote about this earlier in a blog post titled WhyYour Brain Wants to Help One Person, but not Millions.)

Other psychologists say it’s a choice. Some people choose not to care about needs far away, to look away.

They may rationalize their lack of response by noting their small donation won’t make a difference when millions are suffering. Or they are afraid of burnout; how much suffering can one person take on?

Which leads Zaki to ask: “Is compassion collapse a ‘can’t’ or ‘won’t’ problem?” His conclusion: It’s both.

“People do empathize more naturally with one person’s visible, heart-wrenching sorrow than with descriptions of massive tragedies, and human emotion does have a limited range,” he says.

But, he adds, “even when people could extend their care toward a suffering group, they often shy away.”

Which is all fine a good from an academic point of view. What can NGOs do to combat compassion collapse?

Zaki has a few suggestions—none of which will be rocket science to NGO communicators and marketers

First, addressing the “can’t” problem, “evidence suggests that focusing on one of the sufferers can jump-start empathy for the entire group, giving them a vivid case on which to hang their care.”

Second, if someone thinks giving aid is pointless (the “won’t” problem), then telling them about the “difference they can make might inspire them to dig into their empathy even amid great tragedy.”

Of course, those of us who do communications and marketing for NGOs know this; we’ve been dealing with compassion collapse for decades.

We know that the best way to solicit support is by telling the story of one person in need. That’s why we always tell a personal story in appeals.

(For evidence of the importance and impact of this, we need only think of the photo of Aylan Kurdi, dead on the beach after trying to flee from Syria.)

Zaki adds on more thing of interest to those who work for NGOs trying to raise funds for development.

We all know that development is a way to strengthen people, a way to make them more resilient so they can withstand and recover quicker from disasters.

But raising funds for disaster response is always easier than raising money for development. Why is that?

Zaki’s response: “Charitable donations tend to be reactive, not proactive—it’s easier to care about the ongoing suffering of many than the potential suffering of future people that could still be prevented.”

In cases like these, he says, “aid and philanthropy should be driven by something else—for instance, objectively reasoned principles about which policies can make the biggest difference.”

(Hmm . . . I’ve yet to see much money generated by “objectively reasoned principles” about policies. Has anyone given that a try?)

Anyway, more food for thought. Comments?

Zaki is the author of a forthcoming book, The War For Kindness: Building Empathy in a Fractured World.

Stressed and Stretched: New Report about State of Charities in Manitoba

Stressed and stretched—that’s the state of the charitable sector in Winnipeg.

That’s the conclusion of a new report from the Winnipeg Foundation, a registered charity that pools and invests gifts from donors in the local charitable sector.

The report was based on data from 439 Manitoba-based charities, and combined with data from Canada Revenue Agency tax filings, findings from an online/telephone survey of Winnipeg charitable organizations and from three focus groups held with leaders from local charities.

The report notes that while Manitobans are still the most generous in Canada—in terms of percentage of income donated, it led the nation with 0.83% donated versus the Canadian average 0.56%—the number of people in the province making a charitable gift is declining.

This matches trends in Canada as a whole, as reported by groups like CanadaHelps.

In November 2017, it reported that the total amount donated by Canadians was 7% lower in 2015 than in 2006.

In the same timeframe, it said the percentage of Canadian families (not taxfilers) reporting donations dropped from 45% to 40%.

Meanwhile, the Fraser Institute reports that the percentage of aggregate income donated to charity in Canada has declined from 1.26% of aggregate income in 2005 to 0.83% in 2015—a decline of 34%.

It also echoes the findings of Imagine Canada’s report Thirty Years of Giving in Canada, which concluded that “the donor base is getting ever-smaller.”

And yet, although the number of givers is going down, total giving in Canada is up. Which means, the Winnipeg Foundation says, that “fewer people are giving more.”

The Foundation concludes: “Donors are very special people, and becoming harder to find.”

To promote giving, “every effort must be made to thank those who give and to demonstrate the impact so we can rebuild the donor base in our province.”

For Manitoba charities, the challenge is a big one.

65% of groups surveyed say they will not be able to function in the future without a more stable funding situation.

The challenges include lack of a meaningful reserve fund; inability to attract and retain qualified staff (partly due to lower salaries); and an uncertain funding environment (both government and private funding).

Based on the findings, The Winnipeg Foundation is drafting its 2019-2021 Strategic Plan with a focus on strengthening the sector by enhancing capacity-building opportunities including professional development and promoting charitable giving across the province.

It will also support the exploration of potential collaborations, mergers and partnerships in the sector and convene the sector to promote the exchange of ideas and best practices.

In the end, the Foundation notes that while charities in the province are stressed and stretched, they are still standing.

The question is how many of them will still be standing 10 years from now.