Thinking, good and bad? Identifying the psychological mechanisms underlying charitable giving
During this sabbatical, my aim is to provide a novel theoretical background when and why people decide to help others drawing on empirical findings from research from me and my international collaborators. The main tenet of this new review article is that thinking might be both good and bad when the goal is to increase charitable giving. The paper will propose that “introspection” – a method where people introspect about their personal values, will help them to overcome “weigthing biases” in prosocial decisions. The goal of the review paper is thus to synthesize research from diverse sources such experimental psychology, neuroscience and economics on how weigthing biases might occur and how introspection might deploy different affective and cognitive mechanisms to counter such “thinking biases”.
Final report
Main Findings and Publications
The most significant scientific contribution of the project is the identification and, above all, the deepening of two central psychological biases that affect people’s willingness to help: compassion collapse and pseudoinefficacy. Compassion collapse refers to how emotional responses diminish as the need increases—a paradox where we care more about one individual life than many. Pseudoinefficacy describes how awareness of large-scale problems reduces motivation to help, even when help is still possible.
These phenomena have been detailed in several earlier publications, including PNAS (Västfjäll et al., 2014; Slovic et al., 2017) and Frontiers in Psychology (Västfjäll et al., 2015), showing a systematic underweighting of humanitarian concerns in decision-making. These findings are theoretically significant for research in judgment and decision making (JDM), as they highlight how emotionally salient attributes tend to receive disproportionate attention compared to more objective and distant factors such as the magnitude of need or the effectiveness of help.
In this project, we have further developed the theoretical foundation of these findings and advanced a method—structured introspection—to reduce these biases. By encouraging individuals to reflect on their own values, this approach increases the weight of humanitarian considerations in decision-making, leading to more coherent and value-consistent choices. Empirical support for this method has already been published in journals such as PNAS Nexus and Journal of Decision Making (Flores et al., 2022; Moche et al., 2022; Ramos et al., 2022). In this project, we have elaborated on the theoretical background supporting these results.
The most important theoretical conclusion is that “thinking” can be both beneficial and detrimental depending on how it is performed—introspection can guide people to act in line with their own values, whereas mere deliberation can sometimes exacerbate existing biases. This work has been summarized in a manuscript currently under peer review. Additionally, a shorter theoretical piece based on these ideas has been published in Affective Science, along with a new empirical study on introspection published in Current Research in Behavioral Sciences.
Project Outcomes Beyond Publications
Beyond academic output, the project has produced several concrete contributions:
• A theory explaining when cognitive effort and emotion help or hinder prosocial behavior.
• A validated method for structured introspection, applicable in charitable and policy contexts.
• Establishment of new international collaborations between researchers in Sweden, the U.S., and other regions.
• Development of a robust database of experimental studies on giving behavior.
• Actionable insights for NGOs, such as how to structure fundraising communication to reduce cognitive resistance among donors.
New Research Questions
This project has generated several new research questions:
• Under what conditions does analytic thinking reduce prosocial behavior?
• How is the effectiveness of introspection influenced by cultural and social contexts?
• Can introspection be used to increase engagement in other societal challenges, such as climate change or public health?
• How does introspection compare to other cognitive tools, such as nudging or emotional appeals?
Dissemination and Collaboration
Results from the project have been disseminated through both academic and public channels:
• Multiple presentations at international conferences (e.g., SJDM).
• Peer-reviewed publications in high-impact open access journals (see below).
• Collaborations with NGOs such as the Red Cross and GiveWell to apply findings in practice.
• Popular science presentations, including at events like Strimman at Linköping University.
List of Publications and Online Presence
Journal Articles (Open Access)
• Karlsson-Larsson, H., Moche, H., & Västfjäll, D. (2025). Reducing overhead aversion in charitable giving through information and introspection. Current Research in Behavioral Sciences, 8, 100171.
• Västfjäll, D., Asutay, E., & Tinghög, G. (2024). How affective science can inform behavioral public policy.Affective Science, 5(3), 213–216.
Websites
• Arithmetic of Compassion: A dedicated website presenting theoretical and empirical results on thinking, emotions, and prosociality, including outcomes from this project.
https://www.arithmeticofcompassion.org
Ensuring Open Access
All peer-reviewed articles have been published in open access journals and have also been made available through open repositories such as DiVA and PsyArXiv, ensuring full compliance with RJ’s open access requirements.
The most significant scientific contribution of the project is the identification and, above all, the deepening of two central psychological biases that affect people’s willingness to help: compassion collapse and pseudoinefficacy. Compassion collapse refers to how emotional responses diminish as the need increases—a paradox where we care more about one individual life than many. Pseudoinefficacy describes how awareness of large-scale problems reduces motivation to help, even when help is still possible.
These phenomena have been detailed in several earlier publications, including PNAS (Västfjäll et al., 2014; Slovic et al., 2017) and Frontiers in Psychology (Västfjäll et al., 2015), showing a systematic underweighting of humanitarian concerns in decision-making. These findings are theoretically significant for research in judgment and decision making (JDM), as they highlight how emotionally salient attributes tend to receive disproportionate attention compared to more objective and distant factors such as the magnitude of need or the effectiveness of help.
In this project, we have further developed the theoretical foundation of these findings and advanced a method—structured introspection—to reduce these biases. By encouraging individuals to reflect on their own values, this approach increases the weight of humanitarian considerations in decision-making, leading to more coherent and value-consistent choices. Empirical support for this method has already been published in journals such as PNAS Nexus and Journal of Decision Making (Flores et al., 2022; Moche et al., 2022; Ramos et al., 2022). In this project, we have elaborated on the theoretical background supporting these results.
The most important theoretical conclusion is that “thinking” can be both beneficial and detrimental depending on how it is performed—introspection can guide people to act in line with their own values, whereas mere deliberation can sometimes exacerbate existing biases. This work has been summarized in a manuscript currently under peer review. Additionally, a shorter theoretical piece based on these ideas has been published in Affective Science, along with a new empirical study on introspection published in Current Research in Behavioral Sciences.
Project Outcomes Beyond Publications
Beyond academic output, the project has produced several concrete contributions:
• A theory explaining when cognitive effort and emotion help or hinder prosocial behavior.
• A validated method for structured introspection, applicable in charitable and policy contexts.
• Establishment of new international collaborations between researchers in Sweden, the U.S., and other regions.
• Development of a robust database of experimental studies on giving behavior.
• Actionable insights for NGOs, such as how to structure fundraising communication to reduce cognitive resistance among donors.
New Research Questions
This project has generated several new research questions:
• Under what conditions does analytic thinking reduce prosocial behavior?
• How is the effectiveness of introspection influenced by cultural and social contexts?
• Can introspection be used to increase engagement in other societal challenges, such as climate change or public health?
• How does introspection compare to other cognitive tools, such as nudging or emotional appeals?
Dissemination and Collaboration
Results from the project have been disseminated through both academic and public channels:
• Multiple presentations at international conferences (e.g., SJDM).
• Peer-reviewed publications in high-impact open access journals (see below).
• Collaborations with NGOs such as the Red Cross and GiveWell to apply findings in practice.
• Popular science presentations, including at events like Strimman at Linköping University.
List of Publications and Online Presence
Journal Articles (Open Access)
• Karlsson-Larsson, H., Moche, H., & Västfjäll, D. (2025). Reducing overhead aversion in charitable giving through information and introspection. Current Research in Behavioral Sciences, 8, 100171.
• Västfjäll, D., Asutay, E., & Tinghög, G. (2024). How affective science can inform behavioral public policy.Affective Science, 5(3), 213–216.
Websites
• Arithmetic of Compassion: A dedicated website presenting theoretical and empirical results on thinking, emotions, and prosociality, including outcomes from this project.
https://www.arithmeticofcompassion.org
Ensuring Open Access
All peer-reviewed articles have been published in open access journals and have also been made available through open repositories such as DiVA and PsyArXiv, ensuring full compliance with RJ’s open access requirements.