What makes people more likely to give to charity after a disaster: new research

The scope and breadth of natural disasters facing Australia right now can feel overwhelming.

Victoria, still reeling from disastrous, widespread bushfires^[1], faced a new threat last week as a “historic deluge^[2]” caused flash flooding in several coastal towns. Queenslanders, meanwhile, have been grappling with flooding from ex-Cyclone Koji^[3].

Disasters like these don’t just only destroy homes and lives, they also leave lasting scars on individuals, communities, and the environment. Though local support efforts are vital, they aren’t always enough, and further help becomes essential.

To fill in these gaps, many charities launch campaigns to raise money and encourage action that helps others from people who are far-removed and unaffected. However, with so many causes competing for attention and global priorities constantly shifting, it’s harder than ever for these campaigns to break through the noise.

Our new research^[4], published in the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, wanted to understand something big: does distance really matter when it comes to helping others?

And if it does, how can charities use that knowledge to make their campaigns more effective – whether the cause is close to home or far away?

Different types of distance

To find out, we dug into 17 years of research, reviewing experimental studies on campaigns for causes that were “distant” in different ways.

Some were geographically distant – think helping people overseas versus those in your local community.

Others were socially distant – helping people who are nothing like you, compared to those you feel connected to. Think about supporting complete strangers versus people who share your background, interests or community.

And then some were “temporally distant”: causes focused on a distant time point in the future. Examples include climate change outcomes or long-term recovery, versus immediate support for fire and flood victims – such as those in Victoria and Queensland who still need help on the ground right now.

By looking at all these different forms, we started to see that distance isn’t just about kilometres – it’s a concept that shapes how people decide to help.

What we found was fascinating: different types of distance don’t all work the same way. Although people are likely to help when the cause is close to home, what matters even more is social proximity: how similar or connected we feel to people in need.

In other words, helping “people like me” often outweighs helping those nearby. This opens up a big opportunity for charities – if a cause is far away, making it feel socially closer could be the key to success.

Creating a sense of closeness

While we’re not the first to show the power of social identification^[6] in charitable decision making, we focused on studies that looked at real campaigns.

What we found is that social closeness can be created through relational ties or highlighting similarities between the donor and the person in need. This can include sharing the same name^[7], age^[8] or even ethnicity^[9].

When people notice these points of connection, it may make the cause feel more personal and, in turn, increases the likelihood of helping.

Matching the message

We believe there’s another layer to this story. The closer something feels, the easier it is to picture. When a cause is near in time, similar to us, or geographically close, we can imagine it more vividly^[10]. That sense of vividness matters because it shapes how people process and respond to campaigns^[11].

Our review found some evidence that when a campaign fits the level of vividness the cause naturally evokes, it may help people engage more deeply. In other words, matching the message to the psychological “distance” of the cause could make the campaign more effective.

For causes that feel close, vivid and concrete elements, like focusing on individual victims and asking for direct donations, may align best.

For causes that feel distant, broader and less concrete approaches, such as collective stories and effort-based actions like advocacy or volunteering, could be more suitable.

Bridging the gap

In the face of bushfires and flooding in Victoria and Queensland, charities are facing a critical test: how to turn individual concern both at home and overseas into action that helps others.

The takeaway from our research is simple: closeness isn’t just about kilometres. It’s about connection. When a cause feels relatable, we are more likely to act. And when charities tell stories that bridge those gaps, generosity can flow, near or far.

References

1. ^{^} disastrous, widespread bushfires (www.abc.net.au)
2. ^{^} historic deluge (www.abc.net.au)
3. ^{^} flooding from ex-Cyclone Koji (www.abc.net.au)
4. ^{^} new research (doi.org)
5. ^{^} Joel Carrett/AAP (photos.aap.com.au)
6. ^{^} the power of social identification (doi.org)
7. ^{^} name (doi.org)
8. ^{^} age (doi.org)
9. ^{^} ethnicity (doi.org)
10. ^{^} imagine it more vividly (doi.org)
11. ^{^} process and respond to campaigns (doi.org)