The Role of Empathy and the Principle of Care In Counteracting Implicit Racial Bias In Charitable Giving and Welfare Support

Background: In the United States, poverty alleviation relies on both government and nonprofit sectors, but racial bias in charitable giving and support for welfare policies constrains the resources available to racially marginalized communities. Prior research finds that people tend to reduce their charitable giving and welfare support when beneficiaries are racial out-groups (Fong & Luttmer, 2009, 2011; Gross & Wronski, 2021). Existing studies rely on self-reported racial attitudes, which are prone to social desirability bias, and evidence on implicit bias remains limited to hypothetical contexts with inconsistent effects on giving behavior (Bhati, 2021; Harell et al., 2016). Although empathy and the moral principle of care are positively associated with both welfare support and charitable giving (Bekkers & Ottoni-Wilhelm, 2016; Bor & Simonovits, 2021), whether they can counteract the negative effects of implicit bias on giving and welfare support remains unknown. This study addresses two research questions: (1) Does implicit racial bias causally reduce charitable giving to poverty alleviation organizations and support for welfare policies? (2) Do empathy and the principle of care moderate these negative effects?

Methods: This study draws on two data sources: a nationally representative panel survey, the 2008–2009 American National Election Study (ANES), and a pre-registered lab-in-the-field experiment conducted in collaboration with the United Way. The sample consists of White Americans (aged 18+) from the ANES (n = 1,317) and participants recruited for the experiment (N = 300). In the experiment, participants complete real-effort tasks to earn $17, which they may keep or donate within the survey. Using a between-subjects design, participants are randomly assigned to conditions in which they receive identical United Way fundraising messages paired with different client images (Black Americans vs. White Americans). Key measures include the Implicit Association Test, the Interpersonal Reactivity Index for empathy (Davis, 1994), the principle of care scale (Bekkers & Ottoni-Wilhelm, 2016), self-reported charitable giving to poverty alleviation causes, and welfare policy support. OLS regression models estimate main effects and interaction terms, with income as a covariate. The experiment is scheduled for May 2026.

Results: Analysis of the ANES indicates that implicit racial bias is negatively associated with charitable giving and welfare support among white Americans (n = 1,317). Furthermore, empathy and endorsement of the principle of care moderate these associations. However, these findings are correlational and do not establish causal direction. A follow-up experiment to be conducted in collaboration with the United Way—using real monetary incentives and randomized conditions—will provide causal evidence for these relationships.

Implications: Racial bias in charitable giving and welfare support represents a structural barrier to resource equity. By identifying empathy and the principle of care as moderators of implicit bias effects, this study provides evidence that promoting empathy and moral reasoning may be more tractable strategies for expanding resource access in racially marginalized communities than targeting bias directly. These findings have practical implications for nonprofit donor cultivation and welfare policy advocacy, with relevance for efforts to build broad public support for poverty alleviation programs across both nonprofit and government sectors.