Samantha Kassirer, University of Toronto, Rotmam School of Management
Understanding recipients’ psychology matters in aid programs
Cash aid has gained traction as a powerful tool in addressing poverty and food insecurity, with organizations like GiveDirectly leading the way in providing direct cash transfers to those in need. The appeal of cash is clear: it offers recipients flexibility and autonomy to address their specific needs, a significant shift from the traditional in-kind assistance model. But as more charities pivot towards cash, we need to ask: How does receiving cash aid actually feel to those it aims to help?
In our recent paper, published in PNAS, we explored how recipients experience cash aid versus in-kind food aid. Our findings suggest that while cash aid likely holds unique advantages, it can elicit negative social emotions—such as shame—that ultimately deter some from accepting the help they need. Understanding these psychological responses is critical if we want to make aid, even cash aid, as effective as possible. Otherwise, we may literally be “leaving money on the table.”
Cash Aid v Food Aid: A closer look at the recipient’s experience
Our research involved five experiments, including a field study in Kibera, Kenya, and several online studies in the United States. Across these studies, we consistently found that cash aid evokes more stigma than food aid and is less likely to foster feelings of social connection and belonging. In our Kenyan field study, we randomly assigned 500 food-insecure individuals in Kibera to receive an opportunity to pick up either grocery staples or an equivalent amount of cash. Participants offered groceries were significantly more likely to accept them than those offered cash. Additional U.S.-based studies replicated this effect, supporting our prediction that recipients feel less social support and more shame when receiving cash aid. Notably, however, this effect appeared specific to charitable contexts and disappeared when the aid came from the government.
Why does this happen? Food aid is often associated with more of a “communal sharing” relationship, which fosters feelings of inclusion and respect. Cash aid from charities, on the other hand, seems to trigger more of a “market-pricing” relationship, where the interaction feels transactional rather than a gesture of community care. This shift towards more of a transactional model in charitable contexts fosters heightened stigma and shame because recipients may feel unable to offer anything in return. Interestingly, because individuals perceive themselves as already in a somewhat transactional relationship with their government (e.g., through paying taxes), receiving cash from the government does not elicit increased stigma or shame. This helps to explain why recipients are just as willing to accept money as they are to accept food from government sources. While cash aid from charities offers many benefits over in-kind aid, such as greater autonomy and flexibility, it may also come with an unintended psychological cost—one that could limit its effectiveness if left unaddressed.
Making cash aid as effective as possible
To realize the full potential of cash aid, it’s essential to understand and mitigate the stigma it can carry. Here’s how charities can improve the experience for recipients:
1. Gain Insights Directly from Recipients
To tailor aid programs effectively, charities should regularly survey recipients about their experiences. This feedback can reveal how feelings of stigma or respect impact their willingness to accept aid, return for more aid, recommend the charity to others struggling with a similar hardship, and how they choose to use the aid. This can provide charities with actionable insights for improving the design and delivery of cash programs.
2. Highlight Government Support
Study 5 from our research found that the stigma associated with receiving cash aid was significantly reduced when the aid came from the government rather than from a charity. Recipients felt less shame when they perceived the aid as part of a broader system of social support rather than charity. Charities could consider emphasizing partnerships with local governments or framing aid as publicly supported to reduce stigma and enhance the acceptance of cash aid.
3. Engage in Public Awareness Campaigns
Educating the public on the benefits of cash aid is essential to reducing external stigma. Our data shows that recipients of cash aid face more social judgment than those receiving food aid, highlighting the need for campaigns that counter harmful stereotypes. These campaigns can shift perceptions, helping recipients feel supported rather than scrutinized by their communities.
Future directions: Beyond immediate take-up rates
Our research sheds light on an often-overlooked aspect of aid: the psychological experience of recipients. By examining how different types of aid impact feelings of dignity and social connection, we reveal that the form aid takes can shape not only immediate acceptance rates but also the recipient’s overall emotional response to receiving help. Understanding these emotional responses is crucial if we aim to maximize the impact of aid programs.
Cash transfers have gained popularity partly because of their efficiency and the ease of delivery, especially with electronic transfers that promise high take-up rates. At first glance, this seems ideal for poverty alleviation. However, our findings suggest that even for those who ultimately accept cash aid, the experience can still elicit feelings of shame and stigma—emotions that might undermine the long-term effectiveness of the assistance. If recipients feel devalued by the aid they receive, it could hinder their ability to leverage this support to escape poverty traps.
To maximize the potential of cash aid, further research is essential to understand its long-term effects. We need to explore strategies that can reduce the shame and stigma associated with cash aid, examining whether such efforts could enhance its effectiveness. By fostering dignity and support through all forms of aid, we can empower recipients not only to meet their immediate needs but also to build sustainable pathways out of poverty. Our hope is that this research will contribute to making cash aid—and indeed, all types of aid—as empowering and transformative as possible.
Read the full paper on PNAS