Research history

Inert source text, including its original formatting. It is not executed as page markup.

Why do people give? One answer is that they care about the result: fewer hungry children, a cleaner river. Another is that giving feels good, whatever the result. The economist James Andreoni called the second motive the **warm glow** and built it into a formal theory in 1990.

## Pure and impure altruism

Economists had often modeled donors as *pure altruists*, who care only about how much of a public good exists, no matter who provides it. Andreoni’s model of *impure altruism* adds the satisfaction of giving itself, along with motives such as social pressure, guilt and sympathy. He argued that it fits observed patterns of giving better than the pure model, and that it changes the answers to policy questions such as how private giving responds when government funds the same cause and how giving should be taxed.

## Evidence from the brain

In a 2007 study published in *Science*, William Harbaugh, Ulrich Mayr and Dan Burghart gave 19 women $100 each and scanned their brains while they watched money go to a food bank. Reward areas of the brain responded even when the transfer was mandatory, like a tax, which fits pure altruism. They responded more when the women chose to give, which fits the warm glow.

## Why it matters for the system

The warm glow is not a flaw. It is part of what makes people generous at all, and Charitology has no interest in removing it. The question is what the glow attaches to. Charitology’s working claim is that today it attaches mainly to the act of giving and to its size, which donors can see, rather than to its results, which they usually cannot. That is one way the [Missing Feedback Loop](/diagnosis/missing-feedback-loop/) shapes behavior: if the reward arrives the moment the gift is made, nothing pulls the donor to find out what happened next.

The [Prestige Economy](/diagnosis/prestige-economy/) is the social version of the same pattern, and Charitology’s hypothesis is that it pulls money toward visible gifts rather than effective ones. The warm glow itself is well documented. The sources here do not establish whether visible giving shifts money away from better opportunities or by how much.

## Pointing the glow at results

If the glow can attach to the act, it may be able to attach to the outcome. Ideas worth testing include showing donors what their gift achieved, celebrating results rather than amounts and making effective giving a status signal. Whether any of them work at scale is [Open Problem 15, the Status Flip](/open-problems/the-status-flip/). Charitology’s [Wrapped](/tools/charitology-wrapped/) card is one small experiment in that direction.

{
  "adapterVersion": "research-encyclopedia-v1",
  "authorship": {
    "actorIds": [],
    "complete": false,
    "refs": [],
    "state": "unknown"
  },
  "hash": "6b6c53c42b6e1df2aa59f2f6f5aacfbb9576f4aa2c30a1b7ba37b2a6ae3f1307",
  "id": "version:concept-warm-glow-giving-v1",
  "previousId": null,
  "recordId": "concept:warm-glow-giving",
  "sources": [
    {
      "selector": {
        "kind": "entry"
      },
      "sourceId": "source:encyclopedia-warm-glow-giving-v1"
    }
  ],
  "subject": {
    "body": "\nWhy do people give? One answer is that they care about the result: fewer hungry children, a cleaner river. Another is that giving feels good, whatever the result. The economist James Andreoni called the second motive the **warm glow** and built it into a formal theory in 1990.\n\n## Pure and impure altruism\n\nEconomists had often modeled donors as *pure altruists*, who care only about how much of a public good exists, no matter who provides it. Andreoni’s model of *impure altruism* adds the satisfaction of giving itself, along with motives such as social pressure, guilt and sympathy. He argued that it fits observed patterns of giving better than the pure model, and that it changes the answers to policy questions such as how private giving responds when government funds the same cause and how giving should be taxed.\n\n## Evidence from the brain\n\nIn a 2007 study published in *Science*, William Harbaugh, Ulrich Mayr and Dan Burghart gave 19 women $100 each and scanned their brains while they watched money go to a food bank. Reward areas of the brain responded even when the transfer was mandatory, like a tax, which fits pure altruism. They responded more when the women chose to give, which fits the warm glow.\n\n## Why it matters for the system\n\nThe warm glow is not a flaw. It is part of what makes people generous at all, and Charitology has no interest in removing it. The question is what the glow attaches to. Charitology’s working claim is that today it attaches mainly to the act of giving and to its size, which donors can see, rather than to its results, which they usually cannot. That is one way the [Missing Feedback Loop](/diagnosis/missing-feedback-loop/) shapes behavior: if the reward arrives the moment the gift is made, nothing pulls the donor to find out what happened next.\n\nThe [Prestige Economy](/diagnosis/prestige-economy/) is the social version of the same pattern, and Charitology’s hypothesis is that it pulls money toward visible gifts rather than effective ones. The warm glow itself is well documented. The sources here do not establish whether visible giving shifts money away from better opportunities or by how much.\n\n## Pointing the glow at results\n\nIf the glow can attach to the act, it may be able to attach to the outcome. Ideas worth testing include showing donors what their gift achieved, celebrating results rather than amounts and making effective giving a status signal. Whether any of them work at scale is [Open Problem 15, the Status Flip](/open-problems/the-status-flip/). Charitology’s [Wrapped](/tools/charitology-wrapped/) card is one small experiment in that direction.\n",
    "collection": "encyclopedia",
    "frontmatter": {
      "aliases": [
        "warm glow",
        "impure altruism",
        "joy of giving"
      ],
      "conditions": [
        {
          "collection": "conditions",
          "id": "prestige-economy"
        },
        {
          "collection": "conditions",
          "id": "missing-feedback-loop"
        },
        {
          "collection": "conditions",
          "id": "story-bias"
        }
      ],
      "related": [
        "/diagnosis/prestige-economy/",
        "/open-problems/the-status-flip/",
        "/record/encyclopedia/identifiable-victim-effect/",
        "/record/lexicon/#warm-glow",
        "/tools/charitology-wrapped/"
      ],
      "sources": [
        {
          "note": null,
          "publisher": "James Andreoni, The Economic Journal 100(401)",
          "title": "Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving?",
          "url": "https://doi.org/10.2307/2234133",
          "year": 1990
        },
        {
          "note": null,
          "publisher": "University of Oregon, via EurekAlert, on William Harbaugh, Ulrich Mayr and Dan Burghart in Science",
          "title": "Paying Taxes, According To The Brain, Can Bring Satisfaction",
          "url": "https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/465670",
          "year": 2007
        }
      ],
      "summary": "The satisfaction people get from the act of giving itself, apart from what the gift achieves. The economist James Andreoni built it into a theory of giving in 1990, It is one possible input to Charitology’s hypotheses about giving signals.",
      "title": "Warm-glow giving"
    },
    "type": "entry"
  },
  "subjectHash": "c4b17f7c1c4f5eab2d5111fe19cc1ef14c1b915218d7f232b665ece5a08c07c7",
  "version": 1
}