The Identifiable Victim Effect (IVE)
Why a single story drives more generosity than a thousand statistics.
The Data: Individual vs. Group Appeal
Classic studies demonstrate that people respond with more feeling and larger gifts when presented with an appeal focused on **one specific person** (e.g., “Rokia”) compared to an equally urgent appeal using **general statistics** (e.g., “Millions facing poverty”).
Definition of IVE:
The tendency for people to offer greater aid when a specific, identifiable person is observed to be suffering than when the victim is one of a large, anonymous group.
Simulated average gift size based on a study by Small, Loewenstein, and Slovic (2007).
The IVE Psychological Flow
The contrast is between two neural pathways: the fast, emotional System 1 (Individual) and the slow, calculating System 2 (Statistical).
➜
➜ PATHWAY A: **ACTION (Increased Donation)**
Pathway B often leads to **Scope Insensitivity** and feeling overwhelmed, resulting in **Inaction or Smaller Donations**.
B The Problem of Scope Insensitivity
A major consequence of IVE is that the perceived value of saving **one life** is not multiplied when the stakes increase to **two or three lives**. Donors are often ‘insensitive’ to the scope (size) of the tragedy.
The marginal value of saving additional lives rapidly diminishes in the emotional response.
E Efficacy and Control
IVE works because it gives the donor a strong sense of *efficacy*—the feeling that their specific donation **will solve that specific problem**.
-
The Drop-in-the-Bucket Effect:
When presented with 10,000 victims, a donor feels their gift is insignificant, even if it could help 10 of them. This leads to **zero giving**.
-
The Solution:
Campaigns must clearly define the *subset* of the problem the donor can solve (e.g., “Your $20 covers a week of meals for this family”).