Are disaster relief appeals more successful if they emphasize the material cost of disaster events in terms of economic damages and need for shelter, food, and health care, or if they emphasize the human cost in terms of psychological suffering and trauma caused? Although giving patterns seem to suggest that large-scale events that cause widespread material damage (e.g., the Asian Tsunami of 2004) are more successful at eliciting donations than smaller scaled events, it is argued that this pattern is explained by the fact that large perceived material damage leads to more perceived human suffering. In other words, it is the perceived human suffering which is the proximal driver of donations, rather than the material damage itself. Therefore, relief appeals that emphasize the human cost of events are more successful at eliciting donations than appeals that emphasize the material cost of events. This was demonstrated in a study focusing on donations by British participants (N = 200) to the Syrian refugee crisis in 2020, a study focusing on donations by British participants to victims of severe weather events in Eastern and Southern Africa in 2020 (N = 210), and a study among British participants focusing on a fictitious event (N = 150).

中文翻译：

---

将灾害的人力和物质成本视为捐赠的驱动力

如果救灾呼吁在经济损失和对住所、食物和医疗保健的需求方面强调灾难事件的物质成本，还是在心理痛苦和造成的创伤方面强调人力成本，是否更成功？尽管捐赠模式似乎表明造成广泛物质损失的大规模事件（例如 2004 年的亚洲海啸）在募捐方面比小规模事件更成功，但有人认为这种模式可以通过以下事实来解释：物质损失导致人们感受到更多的痛苦。换句话说，捐赠的近端驱动因素是感知到的人类痛苦，而不是物质损失本身。所以，强调事件的人力成本的救济呼吁比强调事件的物质成本的呼吁更能成功地获得捐款。一项针对英国参与者捐赠的研究证明了这一点（N  = 200) 到 2020 年叙利亚难民危机，一项研究侧重于英国参与者向 2020 年东部和南部非洲恶劣天气事件的受害者捐款 ( N  = 210)，以及英国参与者的一项研究侧重于虚构事件( N  = 150)。