Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41807378›Full record

SynthesisNature communications2026

Meta-analyses on charitable giving clarify evidence for empathic and effective altruism.

Matthew J Hornsey, Jessica L Spence, Cassandra M Chapman

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nature communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Matthew J HornseyUniversity of Queensland Business School, Brisbane, Australia. m.hornsey@uq.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1275-3977
Jessica L SpenceUniversity of Queensland Business School, Brisbane, Australia.
Cassandra M ChapmanUniversity of Queensland Business School, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8488-6106

Funding

Department of Education and Training | Australian Research Council (ARC) DE220100903Department of Education and Training | Australian Research Council (ARC) LP200200046
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Effective altruists argue that charitable giving is over-influenced by empathic responses and should instead be guided by cost-benefit analyses about the effectiveness of giving. To provide insight into the extent to which empathy and effectiveness are associated with charitable giving in the population, two meta-analyses are conducted, synthesising 416 effect sizes from 124 papers sampling 74,797 participants. Here we show that effectiveness, r = 0.34, SE = 0.04, 95%CIs [0.28, 0.40], and empathy, r = 0.25, SE = 0.02, CIs [0.21, 0.29], both positively relate to charitable giving overall. However, prediction intervals reveal significant heterogeneity. Moderation analyses reveal one crucial caveat to the overall association between effectiveness and charitable giving: although the mean effect is relatively large when effectiveness is measured, r = 0.42, CIs [0.35, 0.48], manipulated effectiveness has a weak effect, r = 0.03, CIs [-0.10, 0.17]. Our findings suggest that while people may self-perceive as effective altruists, they give like empathic ones, a disjunction that calls for deeper causal investigation.

Indexed as

AltruismCharitiesEmpathyHumans

Identifiers

PMID41807378
PMCPMC13102956

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.