This is my 198th entry! I am amazed that I've spent this much time on this website. Only Google can make me do this.On to the entry. Few days back, International Herald Tribune published an interesting article titled "Save the Darfur Puppy" based on the research of Paul Slovic of University of Oregon. The study claims that "Evidence is overwhelming that humans respond to the suffering of individuals rather than groups". They propose that to move americans to act on the Darfur crisis, they need to present a sympathetic puppy: a suffering puppy with big eyes and floppy ears.
While comparing a puppy with this crisis is reprehensible, I did find the logic interesting. Here are two more paras from the article:
In one experiment, psychologists asked ordinary citizens to contribute $5 to alleviate hunger abroad. In one version, the money would go to a particular girl, Rokia, a 7-year-old in Mali; in another, to 21 million hungry Africans; in a third, to Rokia — but she was presented as a victim of a larger tapestry of
global hunger.
Not surprisingly, people were less likely to give to anonymous millions than to Rokia. But they were also less willing to
give in the third scenario, in which Rokia’s suffering was presented as part of a broader pattern.
I would argue with this, but right now, Sky News has devoted 10 minutes on "Day 10" of some missing rich girl, 15 minutes on Drew Barrymore talking about world hunger and none on any other world order. Go figure.
