On Doing Good by Stealth

A book I've been rereading makes much of how its heroine "does good by stealth." It's a popular idea, of course, and one I'd accepted until recently, but I'm a bit skeptical of it these days. Since becoming involved with Giving What We Can, I've made my giving more public-- and I've also been giving a good bit more. Is doing good by stealth really so great? It feels more virtuous, I suppose because it is-- it requires more real altruism to help others without the reputation gains and warm fuzzies that come with social recognition. But is it, in the end, more helpful? It may or may not be, I think, depending on the situation.

One test is whether the beneficiary of your help would want you to keep quiet, or to tell others. If the person you’re helping is known to you and nearby, it may be convenient simply to ask them whether they want you to talk about helping them. Of course, a person you’ve helped might feel obligated to let you enjoy the social benefits of your kindness, even if it harms their own reputation by, for example, making them look weak.  You’ll have to ask very carefully-- or it might be better not to ask at all, and default to confidentiality, only asking if there are strong arguments in favor of telling others.

But if the person or persons you’re helping are far away and not easy to ask, you’ll probably have no choice but to infer their preferences. This is the situation I find myself in with respect to the charities I support: the people helped by donations to AMF and SCI are far away, many, unknown to me, often young children, and basically hard to ask in almost every possible way. I can infer some things-- they’re probably less concerned about their reputation with my friends (rich Americans they’ve never heard of) than a nearer, known person would be, and anyway, my friends probably already think of poor children in the developing world as objects of charity, when they think of them at all. So it seems to me I should feel less compunction about telling on that account.

Another issue to consider is the effect that talking about giving, or not talking about it, will have on the giver. If telling people that I just gave to charity gives me warm fuzzies, I’m prepared to accept that as an absolute good-- I’m broadly in favor of warm fuzzies. But more than that, will it make me more likely, or less likely, to give more in the future? It seems on the face of it that rewarding myself for giving will make me want to give more, which would be a win. I should also consider the effects on my self-image: trivial acts that change my self-image may have large, predictable effects on my future behavior. Cialdini says that to be most effective in changing self-image and behavior, these "commitments" should be "active, public and effortful," and force the actor to "take inner responsibility for their actions." Giving What We Can's pledge seems designed to take advantage of these effects to encourage future giving.

(On the other hand, if I think that doing good by stealth is more altruistic, maybe I should keep quiet, to prove to myself that I'm a genuinely good person? If I believe I'm doing good partly for social kudos, I may not take "inner responsibility" for my commitment to give.)

If I talk about giving regularly, I’ll begin to get a reputation as a charitable person, which seems as though it would also encourage more giving. But is this true? I’m reminded of psychology research that shows that the satisfaction of talking about a goal can substitute for the satisfaction of making progress toward the goal, so that we’re actually less likely to achieve goals we talk about. Maybe if I talk too much about giving, the talking will begin to substitute for the giving?

Once we begin to discuss giving publicly, we bring third parties into the transaction, so we have to consider our effects on them too. If I talk more about giving to charity, will others give more, or less? GWWC encourages members to pledge publicly, in part, to spread the word. This makes sense to me; many people probably just don't realize how much good effective philanthropy can do, and will give more once they understand that they can realistically save thousands of lives by doing so. They also talk about forming a "community of givers" who can encourage each other and share information about effective giving. I think there's a plausible argument to be made, too, that when I talk about giving, I contribute to a forming social expectation that people like me should give more.


That points to a potential negative effect, though: guilt. Often, when GWWC is mentioned in the media or on blogs, I see commenters saying things like "That's nice, but most people just can't afford to give that much." These comments feel defensive to me, as if by publicly declaring our intent to give, GWWC members are shaming others for not giving more. On a basic level, I don't like making people feel bad; more, I'm afraid it may be counterproductive. I suspect there's another blog post to be written about that problem.