Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
Mediated Humanitarian Knowledge;
Audiences’ reactions and moral actions
PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, REACTIONS AND
MORAL ACTIONS IN RESPONSE TO
HUMANITARIAN ISSUES
Summary Findings of Focus Groups Conducted in the
UK in 2011 – Interim Report 2
Bruna Seu, Dept. of Psychosocial Studies, BIRKBECK, University of London, UK.
Page 1 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
Acknowledgements
This report presents findings from the three-year research project entitled: Mediated
Humanitarian Knowledge; Audiences’ Responses and Moral Actions (‘KARMA’), launched in
2010 by Dr Bruna Seu and colleagues, Dr Shani Orgad and Professor Stan Cohen (LSE). This
project was kindly funded by the Leverhulme Trust: reference grant number F/07 112/Y.
We would like to express our deepest gratitude to all the non-profit agencies and
participants who took part in this study, without whose generous cooperation and time the
research would have been impossible.
We are also very grateful to the researchers – Dr. Frances Flanagan, Dr. Mastoureh Fathi,
Dr. Rachel Cohen, Dr. Rodolfo Leyva - who have assisted with data collection and project
management. .
More information can be found on the project website:
http://www.bbk.ac.uk/psychosocial/our-research/research-projects/mediated-humanitarianknowledge
This report may be cited as:
Seu, I.B. (2014) Public knowledge, reactions and moral actions in response to humanitarian
issues.
Contact details:
Bruna Seu, Dept. of Psychosocial Studies, BIRKBECK, University of London, 30 Russell
Square, London, WC1B 5DT.
Email: b.seu@bbk.ac.uk
Copyright © KARMA Project: Mediated Humanitarian Knowledge; Audiences’ Responses and
Moral Actions
Disclaimer
The views discussed in this report do not necessarily represent the views of the author, but
are the expression, as objective as possible, of the public’s opinions and observations
communicated during the focus group discussions. This notwithstanding, any analysis
involves a certain amount of interpretation and particularly with qualitative data, is never
totally objective.
While every effort has been made by the author to ensure that the contents of this report
are factually correct, neither the Leverhulme Trust nor the author accept responsibility for
the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this Interim Report, and shall not be liable
for any loss or damage that may be caused directly or indirectly through the use of, or
reliance on, the contents of this report.
Page 2 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
Table of Contents
Summary Statement-Introduction:
Executive Summary:
Key Messages:
Main Findings:
1. Knowledge:
1.1. Moral Principles
1.2. Why Help?
1.2.1. Other Focused Motives
1.2.2. Hierarchies of Care
1.3. Socio-Cultural Context
2. Reactions:
2.1. Emotional Reactions
2.1.1. Other-Concerned
2.1.2. Agency-Centred Reactions
2.1.3. Self-Centred Reactions
2.2. Cognitive Reactions: The Problem of Suffering and its Solutions
2.2.1. The Nature of the Problem
2.2.2. Natural Vs. Man-Made Humanitarian Issues
2.2.3. The Causes of the Problem
2.2.4. The Nature of the Solution
3. Actions:
3.1. Monetary Donations
3.1.2 Child Sponsorship
3.1.3 Direct Debits
3.2. Other Forms of Monetary Donations
3.2.1. Material Contributions
3.2.2. Time
3.2.3. Fundraising Events and Signing Petitions
3.3. Blocks to Acting
3.3.1. Moral boundaries – Whom We Should Help
3.3.2. Why We Shouldn’t Help Distant Sufferers
3.3. Structural Reasons
4
5
5
5
7
7
9
10
10
11
13
13
13
13
14
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
21
22
23
24
24
25
25
25
28
31
Appendix A: KARMA’s Research Aims, Methodology and Ethics
32
Appendix B: Table of Participant Demographics
36
Appendix C: Interview Schedule for Focus Group Participants
43
Page 3 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
Summary Statement-Introduction
Building on the findings presented in the first report (see Appendix A for the KARMA study’s
full scope of research questions and project information), this second report specifically
addresses the components of the KARMA study concerned with exploring:


The moral responses and reactions evoked in audiences by humanitarian appeals, and
how these correspond to their ideological, emotional and biographical underpinnings.
(Please note that audience’s biographical underpinnings will be more fully examined in
Report 3)
How the responses evoked by humanitarian appeals relate to audiences’ routine
thinking, emotions and actions that constitute their ‘everyday morality.
In what follows, the key messages and findings related to the above will be summarised and
then unpacked in more detail and empirically substantiated with excerpts from the focus
group interviews with participants. Correspondingly, while most of the themes identified in
this report were prompted by the researchers’ questions (see Appendix C for the semistructured interview schedule) others emerged spontaneously during group discussions.
However, rather than a truth finding operation, this report presents an attempt to map out
the landscape of meanings and understandings that members of the UK public employ to
make sense of, empathise with and respond to humanitarian issues. To this end, this report is
therefore parsimoniously partitioned according to the following three key components
identified in the research questions:
1. Knowledge: This section explores participants’ knowledge and criteria for when, why
and whom to help in times of need.
2. Reactions: This section explores participants’ emotional and cognitive reactions to
NGO campaigns and broader humanitarian causes.
3. Actions: This section explores participants’ most and least preferred types of helping
and chartable practices, and their underlying rationales.
Page 4 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
Executive Summary
Key Messages:

The study provided clear evidence of marked and widespread public fatigue in
response to humanitarian communications. At the same time, participants to the study
responded sympathetically and empathetically to distant sufferers. This suggests that
the fatigue might be primarily due to a crisis in the relationship between the public and
NGOs rather than between the public and distant sufferers.

Despite a widespread emotional responsiveness to distant suffering, several blocks to
action were identified, thus suggesting that mobilising public empathy is a necessary
but not sufficient condition for action. The 3 most important blocks to action were:
a)
Participants’ perceived duties and obligations towards distant sufferers,
including moral principles prioritising blood ties or local communities
b)
Distrust in NGOs, their use of resources and effectiveness of their interventions
in the light of public socio-cultural understandings of humanitarian issues and
their causes.
c)
Participants’ lived experience and their varying capacities for managing
distressing knowledge1

The study shows that although physical and social distance can be an obstacle to
public capacity to fully relate to distant sufferers, it is the ‘human’ and emotional
distance from them that the public resists. Monetary transactions are perceived to
increase the human distance between the public and the sufferers.
Main Findings:
The KARMA research found that the British public is overall generous, actively engaged in
caring for others in their community, and sympathetic to the plight of distant sufferers.
However, blocks that prevent this capacity for care from turning to action to alleviate distant
suffering were also identified.

1
All participants reported having strong emotional reactions to information regarding
humanitarian and development issues and overwhelmingly responded with empathy.
Overall people accepted and expected to feel saddened and shocked by the knowledge
of distant suffering, but some found the communications excessively traumatic and
counterproductive. However, as well as expressing concern for the suffering Other, the
overwhelming majority of participants voiced strong negative emotions towards NGOs
for their perceived manipulative intentions.
This third factor will be discussed in Report 3
Page 5 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1

The vast majority of participants to the study had been involved in or had contributed
to humanitarian or charitable causes at some point in their lives. However, the study
shows that the public perceive and respond markedly differently to humanitarian
emergencies caused by natural disasters and man-made humanitarian crises. Similar
differences were also identified in public attitudes and responses to discrete
emergencies and on-going development problems.

Although most participants have donated to NGOs to help distant sufferers, the study
shows an increasing cynicism towards and distrust of NGOs and their actions towards
both sufferers and the British public. These manifested through a strong resistance
towards a long term commitment and support of particular NGOs and a strong dislike
of direct debits, in favour of one-off donations or, when possible, direct action that
would bypass NGOs.
Page 6 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
SECTION 1: KNOWLEDGE
This section looks at public’s knowledge, understood in this context as the information, beliefs
and attitudes informing and contextualising their responses (both reactions and actions) to
humanitarian information, as well as their criteria for when, how and whom to help.
1.1. Moral principles:

Pure altruism, that is helping simply to make someone else feel better expecting nothing
in return, was an important and frequently mentioned principle underpinning people’s
helping behaviour. Some considered helping others an intrinsic and innate part of being
human. Most believed that the British people are very generous, more so than other
countries:
Doug: […] I just think that probably we are just a caring nation.

The vast majority of participants highly valued being part of a community involved in a
‘give and take’. For these participants the desire to help was based on gratitude and
reciprocal support in the community, with some participants applying this criterion beyond
their immediate community

In terms of abstract moral principles guiding their helping others, participants rarely
differentiated between helping a distant sufferer and somebody nearby or emotionally
close to them. Throughout, participants expressed a wish for an experience of helping
involving embodied, face to face contact or based on shared humanity.

However, in practice, this lack of differentiation did not necessarily translate into a
Universalist application of such principles. Although the data unquestionably demonstrated
the integration of the normative to help others into participants’ individual and national
identity, participants’ willingness and experienced duty to help others stopped at a variety
of points of distance between the helping self and the needy other.

There was a shared belief across all the group that helping is intrinsically and implicitly
good. Conversely, selfishness and not helping when one can, was considered negative and
frowned upon by society and some considered helping others an intrinsic and innate part
of being human.

Some of the principles for helping had a broad ‘everyday’ quality and multipurpose
application (e.g.: ‘every little helps’ ) while other principles were based on participants’
lived experience, particularly gratitude for help received (e.g. children or relatives’
treatment in hospital). Overall, in these cases, the giving back pertained to local
institutions and community and gratitude was expressed through reciprocal help and
support in the community.
Page 7 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1

Wanting to give something back often extended beyond gratitude for specific help
received and stemmed instead from a more general appreciation of having been fortunate
in life and having been cared for by society.

For others, the wish to ‘give something back’, seemed to stem from an appreciation of the
disparity in global life conditions and an expectation to somehow redress the disparity.
Adrian: It’s like when it’s in the news and very much at the forefront of everyone’s minds, it’s
almost expected of you to do something about it, us as, you know, prosperous, healthy
fortunate people living in the world. It would be impertinent of us not to do anything about it.

However, it was felt by some that this sense of care for others was not equally applied to
the British themselves. This was particularly felt because of recession and the current
economic crisis
Cathy No, no, yes, we are the British and I think on a lot of things we get left behind in this...
you know, the way the country is at the moment the British come last in a lot of things.

Participants also made use of absolute notions of moral obligations when explaining why
they helped, also in the case of distant suffering.
Jerry: The rich should help out the poor
Latifa: Yes, I was going to say, you feel like it's the right thing to do, don't you?

Among the broader motivations for altruistic practices, the following were mentioned most
often: Christian caring, social responsibility, conscience and empathy
Imogen: I don't know whether it’s duty, though… You make your choices in life, but it’s not a…
it may be a question of duty for some people, but I don't feel it’s duty. It’s my choice.[…]
That’s not the way I think (that we are all children of God) […] I just feel I’ve got a social
responsibility. I don't feel duty. […] It comes from a sense of the world around you and
empathy.
Bonnie: And it’s a question of conscience, you know, if you don't make that little effort to give
where you're inspired to give, then it’s your conscience. You know you're not doing right.

However, in practice, the lack of differentiation between who deserves help and who
doesn’t did not necessarily translate into a universal application of such principles.
Although the data unquestionably demonstrated the integration of the normative to help
others into participants’ individual and national identity, participants’ willingness and
experienced duty to help others stopped at a variety of points of distance between the
helping self and the needy other.
Page 8 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
1.2. Why Help?
Conversely, in other cases several participants’ altruistic practices were motivated by more
self-centred concerns, i.e., by what the helper gets from helping.

When focusing on themselves, the two most frequently given reasons for helping were
notions of karmic retribution and that helping makes people feel good. For example:
Fawzia: Yeah, I think that's my good deed for the day, something good will happen to me.
Meg: The reason why I give, it makes me feel good about myself.

Sometimes karmic ideas of ‘what goes around comes around’ were mixed with principles
of reciprocity.
Alistair: So, if someone is suffering today, maybe they will be there for me one day if I am
suffering or my family member is suffering, because times change.
Andrew: Yes, I agree. It’s karma, isn't it?

Participants also commented that they liked helping, that being able to help others gave
them a sense of achievement, and some explained that helping made them feel more
hopeful.

Some participants also expressed ‘cheap participation’ motives, whereby giving enabled
participants to temporarily silence humanitarian agencies and disconnect from
humanitarian issues with a clear conscience.
Isla: Yes, that's in your sitting room and you can just turn the TV off and block it out
completely. You're almost saying Q< I can give £20 but just don't bother me with anything
you know? That's how I feel that it is.
1.2.1. Other Focused Motives:

When focusing on the sufferer, many participants helped because they vicariously
identified with the sufferer and recognised the shared vulnerability. Others because they
felt guilty.
Polly: “Then my son has an eating disorder so now I’m also involved with an eating disorder
charity and I'm on a local voluntary group for eating disorders. And I also have involvement
with other charities but with other things that have, you know, touched me, have affected me
over the years. Mental health issues in particular, because I seem to have, with my son’s
eating disorder, I drifted onto the mental health side of it, so I now do unpaid work. I’m vicechairman of the local Mental Health Forum and I sit on the local health boards, Planning &
Implementation Board, and, you know, lots of different things like that”.
Page 9 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
Marianne: Yes. There has been certain occasions when things have happened on the television
that I’ve given to it, you know, I’ve phoned in and pledged and all that kind of thing. And part
of that is that there’s a part of me that thinks that if I was involved in a disaster, I’d like to
think that somebody would help me.[…] I’d like to think that somebody was there for me.
1.2.2. Hierarchies of Care:

Participants made use of a range of principles to prioritise those who should be helped
first or at all. These everyday principles ranged from a prioritisation of blood ties and
parochialism, pragmatic criteria and reciprocity to hierarchies of deservingness.

Correspondingly, although there seemed to be considerable agreement on the general
moral principles discussed above, there was no uniformity in how they were applied.
Across the groups, participants discussed how they prioritised giving help, with the
beneficiary positioned at different degrees of closeness/distance from the self. The
following hierarchy of care emerged, in order of increasing distance of the beneficiary
from the self.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
‘Me and mine’ – ‘the closest to you’
One’s own children and immediate family
Extended family
Local community
Regional community (respectively for those coming from England, Scotland and
Wales)
Taxpayers living in Britain
Britain – ‘my people’
‘Whoever is wronged inside or outside the UK’
‘The world is my family’, ‘I’m a citizen of the world’
How participants positioned themselves on this spectrum was uneven, with the overall
majority positioning themselves at levels 1-4 of prioritisation.
1.3. Socio-Cultural Context:
Additionally to moral principles and hierarchies of care, participants mentioned several sociohistorical factors when discussing their understanding and attitudes towards helping, both
locally and to distant sufferers.

Many participants made reference to feelings of distrust or to a climate of distrust. Many
spoke of distrusting the British government and the Media and the way news are
manipulated for political purposes.
Page 10 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
Harold : […] And it’s a bit like immigration, where people say the country’s overrun with
immigrants, and it isn’t really; it’s just that, you know, the vested interests like to make you
feel that they are.
Alistair: Yes, media and charities, and also politics as well I think. They are all connected in
one way. I think politicians sometimes don’t want the media to show certain things because it
may cost the government a lot of money themselves to get involved, because when there is a
disaster in the world, charities do get involved, governments do get involved, everyone gets
involved, the United Nations, everyone. So, I think it will cost more to help them, in a way,
and that’s why no one wants to hear about it.

Some spoke of the impact of a climate of distrust on the community and how it affects
people’s capacity to give and receive help.
Keanu: You could trust everybody in them days. […] You could trust your neighbours. You
could trust the… you know, you could trust people, but nowadays you can't trust people now.
If you went… If I went to a woman my age, really, and asked her, help her carry her shopping
bag, she’d tell me to bugger off. Yet years ago, if you had seen an old lady and you was in
your 20s, and you see a woman struggling with her shopping bag, you'd say, I'll give you a
hand up with that bag, and she’d say, oh, yes. Thank you very much. But if you went to say
that now, Tesco, she thinks you're going to steal it.

Others advocated distrust, particularly when giving to needy people overseas.
Earl : My brother and his wife donated for years and years and years for a family in Africa, and
just think that they just scammed them forever; they never saw anything. Every time... they
went back every five years and every time they went back they’d not done anything with it.

Corruption was also a recurrent theme mentioned by people, particularly when discussing
overseas aid
Ken: Yes. So we know how terrible it is for these people. But I think you've got to get to the
heart of the trouble. So I've got a friend who does charity work. She's been fundraising last
week, and she does every year. It all goes to the plight of Africa where they're building a
school. The point is, she stands out in this rain, selling the bows and the everything else, yet
you’ve got the people above them, who are stashing away millions and millions of pounds, and
not helping the people. And yet we're expected to try and help them. So you’ve got to get to
their governments...
Interviewer: Is that what you mean by people above? The government?
Ken: Yes. Government. I'm talking about Mugabe, and people like him.

Some people believed in universal traits that make people behave unethically
Hank: Everyone’s out to make a buck, that’s why they sell arms to the poor countries. So long
as they’ve got the money to buy it, they’ll sell it. Whether it’s ethical or they need it is another
point. It’s… you know, if I was selling it, and I didn’t sell it, this guy’d sell it, next to me, if he
Page 11 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
could make money out of it. And I think that that’s the problem, it’s… it’s like that all over the
world, with everything.
Bruna So how… you mean we’re selfish, is that what you mean?
Hank Well, yes.
Hank Everyone’s out to make a buck.

Equally frequent was the mention of recession and its effects on people’s willingness to
give.
Neville: You’ve got... in our age now that the recession’s kicked in and there’s not a lot of
money for anyone anyway sooner or later the English pound is going to go to nothing. We’re
going to have to go to the Euro potentially. I mean we’ve got to start thinking about ourselves
and how we’re going to make money just like they did back in the days of the Wall Street
crash and all those things.

Many also expressed cynicism in relation to humanitarian aid and the government’s
dealings.
Hamish: I mean, our government’s just offered X million pounds to Pakistan, towards their
education and their children. Yet, we’re short in schools, hospital; teachers are getting made
redundant… It’s all political; the only reason he’s given that money is because of the War on
Terror, and we need to keep Pakistan on board, a nuclear-armed country.

Similar cynicism and suspicion were expressed towards humanitarian agencies
Penny: I think I always have been cynical about it, about foreign aid, […] I do, and I think
having had experience of charities, I know how much these people are paid to sit in these
offices and to supposedly run these charities, these campaigns that, you know, take these
terrible pictures and depict these awful things, you know, which I’m not saying they haven't
happened. Obviously, these are facts, you know, these tragedies have happened, these people
are living like this, but it’s that whole – I resent being manipulated, I suppose.
Page 12 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
SECTION 2: REACTIONS
This section explores participants; emotional and cognitive reactions to NGO campaigns and
broader humanitarian causes.
2.1. Emotional Reactions:

All participants reported having strong emotional reactions to information regarding
humanitarian and development issues. Overall people accepted and expected to feel
saddened and shocked by the information, but some found the communications
excessively traumatic and counterproductive.

Many of these emotions expressed concern for the sufferer, but also for the impact of the
information on themselves. Most participants expressed strong negative emotions towards
NGOs for their perceived manipulative intentions.
2.1.1 Other-Centred Reactions:
The
two
most
frequently
mentioned
emotional
powerlessness/hopelessness and empathy/sympathy.

reactions
were
Powerlessness was expressed both in terms of humanitarian problems not being amenable
to a solution, and participants’ sense that their contribution would not make a difference.
Bruna: Do you think that as individuals we can make any difference at all?
Keith: I don’t think so. It's them themselves that have to make the difference, not us. It
doesn’t matter what we say, or how much money we send them or whatever it is.
Candice: It [my first reaction] was that I felt sad and I felt hopeless actually. So it made me
feel that it’s absolutely hopeless, what can I do?

While powerlessness stopped people from contributing to humanitarian and development
causes, empathic and sympathetic responses made people inclined to help.
Gail: I think it's sympathy at the time it happens and that's what makes you give.

Participants also experienced sadness and guilt.
Gail: It's in our face, we live, eat and breathe it for days and days and days when it happens
and it might be a guilt thing, I don't know, but we all tend to give to people like that.
2.1.2. Agency-Centred Emotional Reactions:

Often the empathic response was accompanied by negative emotional responses in
relation to the perceived manipulative intentions of the agencies.
Page 13 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
Hamish: Well, I don’t think it’s right, because they’re pressurising you. It’s like a guilt trip with
you. Send you pictures of, like, young kids and all; you think, no, that’s…
Keanu: [the communication] made for you to pity and put your hand in your pocket and give
more than what you can afford.
[…]
UM: I feel… that's what it is, isn't it? It is a form of manipulation.
UM: Manipulation.
Keith: Blackmail more like.
2.1.3. Self-Centred Reactions:

Participants also expressed cynicism, mistrust and resentment towards agencies for being
made to read distressing material. The overall quality of this type of reaction was that the
emotions evoked by the communication were unbearable
Alan: I can’t stand it, it hurts me so much I just flick away, it makes me feel sick in a way
Keanu: They show you all the acts and Children in Need, and then they put, next thing you see
is children, babies, black babies in arms, with their parents, covered in flies, please give to
these, you know. My wife looks at that, and she turns it off. Because not that she…she won't
do anything... it upsets her. She won't watch it because she gets… she emotionally gets upset.
Carmen: I mean I can’t watch the adverts. I mean when you do... like Comic Relief last week
when they were doing the... I had to turn away because I can’t bear it.
2.2. Cognitive Reactions: The Problem Of Suffering And Its Solution:

The most widespread belief in regards to humanitarian and development issues was that
‘nothing ever changes’ and that humanitarian problems are intractable, chronic and stuck.

Most participants differentiated between and responded differently to humanitarian issues
resulting from natural causes and those which they perceived to be man-made.

A similar polarised differentiation was also used to explain different responses to
humanitarian emergencies and development issues. The differentiation between long-term
versus emergency humanitarian crises were mentioned across all focus groups.

Whilst for natural emergencies most participants expressed a sense of responsibility and
willingness to help, with man-made and on-going humanitarian problems, participants’
responses were less linear and more ambivalent. The majority of participants believed that
that man-made problems were endemic to the country in need, particularly in the case of
Page 14 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
African countries, that monetary or other kinds of interventions are futile and ill advised,
and that the British public and government are not responsible or equipped to intervene.
2.2.1. The Nature of the Problem:

The most widespread belief and sentiment expressed in regards to humanitarian issues
was that ‘nothing ever changes’. Thus the sense of fatigue in relation to humanitarian
communication expressed by the vast majority of participants was exasperated by a belief
that humanitarian problems are chronic and stuck. Africa was mentioned by many as the
symbol of what is quintessentially intractable in humanitarian issues. The use of Africa as
shorthand captures these widespread perceptions of development and humanitarian
problems, without the need for further explanation
Milly: “ I think we’ve got used.. you know.. the Africa thing.

The standard reference was to child starvation in Africa, offered by many participants in
most groups as the proof that nothing ever changes. The mention of Live Aid and Band
Aid was also a recurrent way of showing both how starvation in Africa is a chronic
problem and the futility of monetary donations.
Hugo: they’ve been starving in Africa – I’m not being funny about it – since I were a kid. And,
like, we’ve had Live Aid, Band Aid, whatever it is, but they’re still starving in Africa.

Added to the chronic poverty many participants viewed humanitarian issues as caused by
chronic corruption.
Imogen: I don't think it’s going to make any difference. Well, you know, I think everybody’s
skirting around the issue which is, you know, chronic poverty and chronic corruption in a lot of
countries. Especially the corruption.

Additionally, as discussed in Report 1, many believed that high administration costs meant
that “only a little money gets through”.

Others believed that humanitarian problems are the legacy of colonialism.
Kaleb: Well, I think the only comment I made, I mean, we used to have this vast empire, as
England, and I think we're guiltily responsible for lots of things that went on then.
2.2.2. Natural vs. Man-Made Humanitarian Issues:

Most participants differentiated between and responded differently to humanitarian issues
resulting from natural causes and those which they perceived to be man-made.
Differentiations were made on the basis of several factors.
Page 15 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1

One was the issue of responsibility and blame.
Milly: I think, when I saw the Pakistan and all that, the people sitting for days on end on top of
roofs and everything, that hit me more. I didn’t feel like that was a corrupt government that
had left those people and they weren’t helping solve, you know.

Another frequently mentioned factor was the immediate and visible impact of help and the
effectiveness of monetary aid in case of natural disasters compared to man- made
humanitarian issues
Iris: Well, a lot of it is man-made. It’s not... I mean, if it’s a natural disaster like a flood or an
earthquake, I mean we can pour money in and rebuild a town or supply food, but if it’s a
war... I mean, you just don’t know where the money’s going or what the result will be.
Ida: Or if the money gets through or the aid gets through.

A similar polarised differentiation was also used to explain different responses to
humanitarian emergencies and development issues. Overall, the former seemed to be
received with relatively less resistance by the public. In emergencies, the usefulness of
monetary donations is evident so is the clarity of what is needed and the visibility of what
can be achieved through aid. There is also a sense of a discrete emergency with an end to
the need. In contrast, in the case of poverty, the problem is perceived to be ongoing and
not being ameliorated by monetary aid. These differences were mentioned across all focus
groups.
Milly: I think, natural disasters and on-going poverty are two different, completely different
things. […] the Pakistan, you know, the people on the houses and everything waiting to be
rescued. You know, that’s immediate and needs money straightaway, you know, China and
everything. But you know this starvation thing? It’s gone on and on and it doesn’t get any
better and no matter how much money you chuck at it, it doesn’t seem to get any better, does
it? It goes on and on and we don’t seem to get any conclusion from that. It doesn’t get any
better.
Bridget: I think that if you give to something that is a sudden emergency and you suddenly
hear that it is, you know, obviously getting much better, then you do feel it has been helping
in some sort of way. But the things that are long-term, it’s just, you know, you do get this
feeling of helplessness, sadly. But, oh, you see it over and over again and you think it’s just
awful but...
2.2.3. The Causes of the Problem:

In contrast to the overall empathic and proactive responses across focus groups to
humanitarian emergencies due to natural causes, participants were divided over their
understanding and responses to man-made humanitarian issues. The vast majority of
Page 16 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
participants believed that the causes of the problem were endemic to particular countries,
with Africa being the quintessential example of this
Hugo: They’re corrupt, aren’t they? They send as much money as you want to some of those
African places, they’re never… they’re not going to be… they’ll still be like this in 20 years’
time, no matter how many people give two bobs.

Some believed that the problem originated from the sufferers themselves.
Keanu: They still keep having babies, covered in flies. They can’t feed them. It’s awful. […]
They haven’t got enough food in the country to feed them, so why keep having them?
Because the’re all dying. It’s like breeding rabbits and they die.

Some of these beliefs were moderated by alternative and more sympathetic views. For
example Oscar, who believed that African governments are corrupted, also added:
Oscar: I’d just like to say one thing about Africa, that they cannot grow food because the
weather, it’s so arid there that, so you can say they can help themselves but if they can’t grow
the food to eat, apart from irrigation and things like that which, what are they supposed to do?

Whilst for natural emergencies most participants expressed a sense of responsibility and
willingness to help, with man-made, on-going humanitarian problems, participants’
responses were less linear and more ambivalent. There was expressed reluctance to
getting involved both in terms of individual responses and state interventions.
Ogden: So none of these would appeal to me because a lot of it is caused by politicians, you
know, and governments and somebody’s caused a problem or it’s, you know, due to civil war
or whatever. Let them fight it out themselves. You know, why do we need to get involved and
send money there? It’s only going to keep things going.

A very small number of participants believed that the problems ‘here’ and the problems
‘out there’ are inextricably linked and that the West is directly implicated in various ways.
Quaide: The issues that occur, whether they’re to do with conflict, or to do with famine, have
an effect on us either immediately or at some point in the future, whether it’s through people
being able to buy things that we make, or it’s going to be to do with people who are fleeing
persecution, or economic migrants. So the idea that they’re separate, I find worrying, and I
think the world’s a lot smaller than that.

The view was also expressed that “the British Empire has got a lot to answer for”.
Harold: I think it’s all… I mean, it’s all tied up in the political, ex-colonial situation, though, isn’t
it, in the sense that a lot of these places, whether it be in Africa, the Indian sub-continent, it’s
all… seems to be like a legacy of colonialism in the sense that they’ve kind of relied on the
mother country being there for them as a backup in a lot of sense. But not only that, you’ve
Page 17 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
got the arms trade whereby Britain and all the superpowers, they’ve never had any qualms
about selling these places arms.

Others also highlighted the complexity of the situation and while agreeing on the role of
corruption in keeping people in poverty, some made reference to “exploitation by
multinational companies while others believed that “the causes of poverty are almost
always political.

Even though the participants who believed the West was implicated in the causes of
poverty and lack of development in third world countries were highly vocal, these were
only a handful of people across the focus groups.
2.2.4. The Nature of the Solution:

The majority of participants believed that poverty, starvation and on-going development
problems had no solution and were impossible to solve. In this context the majority of
participants thought that monetary donation was not a good enough or even effective
solution. Only a few disagreed with this view and even those who judged important to
continue financial aid to suffering countries, believed that this was simply because of lack
of alternatives.

As an alternative to the view that humanitarian problems such as poverty and starvation
would never change, the view was offered that change results from a natural process,
internal to the country.
Genevieve: I think it is a natural process, really, it's up to some degree, yeah. I think it's… I
don't know, sometimes the harder you push and the less you get there, you know, I suppose
it's… I don't know. I think it's just a natural thing. Somebody somewhere will suddenly go,
ping, light bulb turns on.

For people believing in a process of ‘natural’ progression, individuals and NGOs are not
agents of change and countries will ‘get there’ eventually.

In contrast to this view, a few others believed that change happens as result of political
pressure. Yet, for only a few this translated into a belief that that petitions and pressure
from citizens can make a difference.
Quincy: It’s because we, sort of, all…we allow it to happen, because we don’t ask those
questions. Like, we’re all sitting here saying, well, you know, what actually happens to that?
But how many of us have actually bothered to ask? I know it sounds silly, but writing to your
MPs and saying, actually, where does it go to; what is happening? Because, at the end of the
day, we are…if we’re all…we’re saying if these charities came together, well, what if we all
came together, you know?
Page 18 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1

For the vast majority of other participants believing in the importance of the role of
politics in change, this translated into further self-disempowerment and justification for
not intervening in humanitarian causes.
Hugh: Because, I mean, I think we’re all mankind, we need to help everybody, but we as
individuals don’t have the ability to help everybody. […] As bad as it gets, we don’t suffer an
ounce to what people all over the world suffer in these countries, through no fault of their
own. But I see what we can do. I don’t see that giving £10 a month is going to help them.
It’s political and it needs to start from the top; these people need to be helped from the top,
from their own government.
Page 19 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
SECTION 3: ACTIONS
This section explores participants’ most and least preferred types of helping and chartable
practices, and their underlying rationales.
3.1. Monetary Donations:

One-off donations to natural disasters, particularly through telethons, were the only form
of monetary donations that participants responded to positively.

Several factors contribute to make telethon the preferred form of monetary help: the
urgency and visibility of the sufferer’s need, ease of response (both in terms of what is
being asked of the donor and the ease of making that donation), visibility and
effectiveness of impact of the donation, the ‘feeling good’ factor and the capacity to then
‘forget about it’.
Andrew: Commitment, that’s exactly right, not investment2. But for a lot of people it’s a lot, I
mean say there’s a massive flood, people need support and money and it’s a lot easier to say
oh well, I'll ring this number and give now. That’s going back to what I said about Comic
Relief. We have one night, I know people think it goes on for months around the year, but
they have one night where they go give us your money now and throughout the night they’re
saying we’ve got 25 million, 30 million. It’s a lot easier for people to go oh, it’s only a phone
call, so they ring up and give their details, they pay and then they forget about it. I think a lot
of people think like that and it’s a weight off their mind. They think oh, I should probably give,
so then they do and then they think oh, that’s all right, they’ll be fine now.

However, whilst the majority of participants were occasional givers (in particular
telethons, but also to shakers and money boxes), only a small minority of participants
extended their help on a regular basis beyond the borders of Britain. Their willingness to
help stopped at different points of increasing distance of the beneficiary from the self.

Overall, the vast majority of participants had been involved in or contributed to
humanitarian or charitable causes at some point in their lives. However, they also
expressed a strong dislike for monetary contributions and a marked preference for other
types of contributions, particularly fundraising events, giving time and signing petitions.
2
In response to a previous comment criticising direct debits as a commitment rather than an investment
Page 20 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
3.1.2 Child Sponsorship:

In terms of long term giving, some of the characteristics that make telethons successful
emergency appeals applied also to long term giving of child sponsorship. It provides proof
of efficacy and gives feedback on what has been done with the help given. Additionally, it
fosters a relationship with the beneficiary.
Barbara: I mean, one of the ones that I think is the nicest, you know, Q< she can change your
life forever, sponsoring a child and I know... I work at a market, and I do know a gentlemen
who has actually sponsored a little boy in Sri Lanka and he goes once a year and he gets
letters and he writes letters to this little boy and it’s... you know, lit up that man’s eyes, you
know, because he’s never had children and he feels that he’s really helping someone. So, I
mean, that’s really a hands-on, one to one thing, but that’s the only thing that really gives me
hope out of this because nobody really cares about, you know, oh yes, that’s... oh that’s what
happens when you start to actually, you know, [unclear] and I’m just turning the page to look
at something else. I mean, it’s a sad reflection on what’s happening in life, but unfortunately a
lot of these.

However, there was disagreement of opinion on whether the donation went to one
particular child or to the child’s community. Some thought it didn’t matter and, in fact, the
latter was better for all concerned. Others interpreted this as further proof of manipulation
and untrustworthiness on the part of the agency.
Penny But I think they've got a pile of photos of children looking like that and you sponsor it
and they’ll send you the... and they’ll just take it off the top of their... do you know what I
mean? And I’m not saying that then the money doesn’t necessarily go to children, but does it
go to that child? When they say you sponsor Mary who lives in Kenya? Are you though? Do
you know what I mean, are you actually making a difference to that one child’s life or you
making a tiny difference to a whole village? I’m not saying it’s bad but it’s that whole
manipulation that they're making you feel that you're doing that for that one child, where
actually I don't think, being a cynical old cow, that they are, you know.

These factors make this ‘emergency’ model of communication of and response to
humanitarian crises the quintessential and most successful prototype of ‘sufferer-agencypublic’ dynamic.

In terms of long term giving, some of the characteristics that make telethons successful
emergency appeals applied also to long term giving of child sponsorship. It provides proof
of efficacy and gives feedback on what has been done with the help given. Additionally, it
fosters a relationship with the beneficiary.
Barbara: I mean, one of the ones that I think is the nicest, you know, Q< she can change your
life forever>Q, sponsoring a child and I know... I work at a market, and I do know a
gentlemen who has actually sponsored a little boy in Sri Lanka and he goes once a year and
Page 21 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
he gets letters and he writes letters to this little boy and it’s... you know, lit up that man’s
eyes, you know, because he’s never had children and he feels that he’s really helping
someone. So, I mean, that’s really a hands-on, one to one thing, but that’s the only thing that
really gives me hope out of this because nobody really cares about, you know, oh yes, that’s...
oh that’s what happens when you start to actually, you know, [unclear] and I’m just turning
the page to look at something else. I mean, it’s a sad reflection on what’s happening in life,
but unfortunately a lot of these ..

However, there was disagreement of opinion on whether the donation went to one
particular child or to the child’s community. Some thought it didn’t matter and, in fact, the
latter was better for all concerned. Others interpreted this as further proof of manipulation
and untrustworthiness on the part of the agency.
Penny: But I think they've got a pile of photos of children looking like that and you sponsor it
and they’ll send you the... and they’ll just take it off the top of their... do you know what I
mean? And I’m not saying that then the money doesn’t necessarily go to children, but does it
go to that child? When they say you sponsor Mary who lives in Kenya? Are you though? Do
you know what I mean, are you actually making a difference to that one child’s life or you
making a tiny difference to a whole village? I’m not saying it’s bad but it’s that whole
manipulation that they're making you feel that you're doing that for that one child, where
actually I don't think, being a cynical old cow, that they are, you know.
3.1.3 Direct Debits:

Direct debits were the most disliked and passionately resisted form of donations, even by
people who had been consistently and actively involved in humanitarian actions such as
fundraising. Primarily this was because participants felt unable to make the required
commitment, either because of changes in their life circumstances, the impact of
recession, or uncertainties about the future. This was particularly felt by pensioners, most
of who experienced a direct debit as ‘one more bill to pay’.
Meg: What puts you off is the direct debits. That’s the only thing that puts you off if you just
cannot do commitment.

Some participants were put off from signing up to a direct debit because they were afraid
of fraud or didn’t trust NGOs.
Quimby: And I’m also wary about revealing my financial details. I guess things are checked,
like, but, I mean, a few months off I closed my bank account down, one of these things,
because again I just don’t look 100% to banks for security, you know, in sending information
to third parties.
Page 22 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1

Correspondingly, others didn’t give to overseas suffering because believed that a large
percentage of their donation would not reach the beneficiaries but would be used by
NGOs or administration costs or wasted.
Hank: The thing that’s always put me off is, like, say, you donate £10 for a family in India,
just, for example, running water. I would gladly give £10 if I knew it would get to them and it
would help them, but you think, well, probably £8 of that’ll be administration, backhanders,
government…
3.2. Other Forms of Monetary Donations:

Participants unanimously disliked and resented phone calls from sales representatives
working for NGOs asking existing donors to increase their direct debits.

Participants also commented on their ambivalent relationship with shakers. Some felt it
was a convenient and low cost way of helping to put their pennies in collection boxes, just
because they were in shops. Others felt that “if somebody’s good enough to stand out
there in hail, rain and snow, rattling the box in front of you, I'll gladly put my hand in my
pocket, put some money it. And I do it” while others resented the face to face pressure
and refused to give to a “random shaker”.

The feeling and dislike for being pressurised was particularly strong in connection to cold
callers and chuggers that made participants feel ‘badgered’.
3.2.1. Material Contributions:

A large proportion of participants thought that material contributions, in particular food,
toiletries, tents, clothing, were better alternatives to money. This was because, differently
from money, the donated objects are more likely to reach people in need, they won’t end
up in the wrong hands, can’t be turned into weapons, or spent in administrative costs.
Otto: Like the malaria vaccine that they’re sending now to Africa, there’s millions of them sent
from this country and they reckon it’s only about 2% of that’s going to get to the people
because, as you said, they’re going to, there are people there taking it and selling it to other
people, so it could be on the black-market. So you know, I think it’s the issue of, as Oliver
said, if it’s material, if it’s shoes and socks, something like that, it’s difficult but when it’s [..],
they’re all in the pot for it, aren’t they? You know, that’s sad.
Renee: I just always remember the kind of thing at Live Aid in ‘85, the whole kind of like con
that came out of that, because they hid so many… I don’t know you remember this, but
millions upon millions was raised, and Bob Geldof gave it over to the prime minister of this
country who thought it was a present and spent it on cars. Uh huh. It was a huge controversy.
Page 23 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
The government thought it was a gift. We have no idea how much actually got to the people
that were actually needing it, because the government themselves weren’t doing anything
about it. You’re just thinking, well…
Raina: They were stupid to give them the money.
Renee: I know, and there’s so much like that. You know what there is, you know, if we’re
actually making up little boxes and it’s got clothes and it’s got toys, and it’s got sanitary and
blah blah blah, you just feel as if, well, they can’t turn that into weapons, you know. […]
Rebecca: And if you paid the ₤5 a month, that would never be getting spent on...
Renee: Administration fees alone...
3.2.2. Time:

Giving time was also perceived to be a preferable alternative to giving money, both when
related to local helping and distant sufferers. This was partly because the giver can see
the concrete effects of their efforts.
Penny: When the Haiti thing happened, I was absolutely horrified and I really struggled to
watch it on television. And the thing that upset me most was that weeks after it first
happened, after these awful pictures were on the news every day, all day, this government
kept saying that USA, they kept saying they were going to send aid out and they just didn’t.
And they kept saying, oh, yeah, we’re going to, we’re going to, we’re going to do all this and
the other and then meanwhile they're spending billions daily on arms, warfare, wars, you
know. It’s crazy. But the thing it made me want to do, well, what I did do when I saw that is
that I signed up with the Red Cross to actually become a volunteer to go to disaster zones.
3.2.3. Fundraising Events and Signing Petitions:

Many participants had given to, participated in or organised fundraising events. Several
factors contributed to making fundraising attractive: it enables people to raise more than
they could afford to donate individually, it is relatively easy to organise, involves the
community, and people have a good time participating.
Meg: And since then we’ve been involved, I’ve been involved when the tsunami took place and
I’m quite good at cooking so I cooked takeaway food. I raised £2,000. […] I could not give
£2,000 but I was willing to put the hard work in, raised the money and provided the food and
cooked the food to triple or quadruple the money; buy a pound of potatoes, cook them up and
then, you know, 50p you spent on potatoes and you probably got £10 for them or £20. Sort of
making samosas and curries and rice and stuff like that. Then, it’s like somebody else said,
then another disaster happened, the Pakistan disaster and then people come to me and
saying, are you going to cook again, are you going to do this? So you feel like, well, you go
again because I’m Pakistani. And then it went on for six months. You do, you give everything
what you’ve got, you know. I couldn’t give out money but, again, you have a bit of money and
you can make more. And we did but you can’t keep doing it and doing it. We might have
Page 24 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
raised £5,000 but that £5,000, if I did a direct debit of £2 a month, would probably still be
ongoing for another five years or whatever. I mean, my maths isn’t very good.

Signing petitions has the advantage of offering an easy form of participation, it provides
feedback and proof of efficacy, and it makes people feel they are part of something.
Rachel: I sign a lot of petitions online, which is something that’s really easy to do, once you’ve
signed up. You know, you put your details in once, and it’s not like you have to send an email
to somebody, or anything like this. And I find that really useful, because then…they then give
you an update on whether whatever it was went through. So it could be, we’re sending this to
Gordon Brown to do such and such. So you sign it, and then they’ll send you after two days,
oh, look 50,000 people did it, and it’s gone through. Like, we’ve succeeded. So you kind of feel
part of something, without having to give money away, or a lot of time, which I find really
great, I love it.
3.3. Blocks to Acting:
Despite their overall generosity and belief in the value of altruism and helping others in need,
participants did not always help in cases of humanitarian need.. Several reasons were given
for not helping, the vast majority of which referred to monetary donations.
3.3.1. Moral boundaries – Whom We Should Help:

Although the overall majority of participants considered themselves to be highly generous
and had helped relatives and members of their community, they were more discerning
when asked to help distant sufferers.

A small proportion of participants felt that the same principles should apply to near and
distance suffering and that we have the resources to help both in our country and abroad.
Bianca: they are all God’s children.
Becky: Because I consider the world is my family. We are all one big family.
Iris: I think we can help at home and abroad. […] I’m not saying we shouldn’t support, help
the poor in this country, but I feel we’re rich enough to help both at home and abroad.

The majority of participants believed that helping some sufferers should be prioritised over
others and applied a variety of criteria to decide who should be helped, or not, and why.

A large section of participants believed that charity begins at home and that we should
prioritise blood ties
Florence: I think if all these little children and all these countries, whenever one of them died,
if that were me or brothers and sisters like there, what my view would be. Whereas if our
Page 25 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
brothers and sisters were dropping dead of cancer or whatever, I'd feel I’d support them more
because it would be my own, kind of thing. Everybody else around me, my life is affected by
it. My own life isn't affected by one of them dying. It sounds a bit selfish but...
Bruna: So that's where you draw the line, it’s things in your family.
Florence: Yes, just me and mine, me and my own, kind of thing.

Others applied pragmatic criteria when deciding whom to help
Adrian: If we don’t look after ourselves, how can we look after other people?
Nelson: Like there are all those little things you can do for yourself but you haven’t got time to
so why are you going to go out of your way to do something for someone else?

Reciprocity was considered very important by participants when deciding to help or not,
and some applied this criterion beyond their immediate community
Genevieve: We've all had it up to here.
Bruna: So you feel… you don't feel it's our responsibility basically?
Genevieve: No, honestly, not anymore. But I feel we jump into everyone's war, we jump into
everyone's country to support them and look after them, and in the meantime…who supports
us and who helps us? Do any of those countries come running over here to support to us?

Deserving help was used as an important criterion to decide who to help and some groups
of people were considered more deserving than others. There seemed to be agreement
that children were intrinsically the most deserving of help, and some believed that British
children were the most deserving of all.
Genevieve: In Britain research is being curbed, hospitals are closing and personally would
rather give to the children in this country that are dying, children with leukaemia, children at
Great Ormond Street Hospital. To me, I would rather give my money to them. […] Yes,
because unfortunately, the way the country is at the moment, the children in this country are
suffering. A lot of children that are so very, very poorly, can't have life-saving operations.
Maternity units are closing, premature babies are dying because there isn't and to me, I think,
we must get our priorities right, and we live in this country.

Others felt that beneficiaries should earn the help by working for it.
Neville : If that’s what you’ve earned your money for, you’ve gone out and worked hard
enough and that’s something that you’ve set your mind on, a goal, you’ve given yourself a
goal, I want to get an iPod, it costs £200 I will work and save my money to get what I desire.
If you can do that then you should do it happily. It’s not someone else’s choice to say, no, with
that money that you’ve just raised you should go and give it to somebody else. At the end of
the day why is that person telling you this, do you know what I mean?
Page 26 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1

Others believed that the beneficiaries deserving help where those able to work with the
help given.
Otto: But initially they [the Japanese] refused help whereas in Africa there’s been the bowl
where you just can’t fill it. This is the sad fact of the reality I think. Africa has had billions of
pounds and they’re still nowhere near, and yet in Japan, they’re going forward. They’re even
building, you know, and you think... I don’t know. I don’t know the answer to be honest but,
you know, what is it? There is something. People, a lot are willing to do that and others, as
you said about India, no, we do it ourselves.

Others preferred to help beneficiaries whose cultural behaviour they recognised and
approved of.
Raina: To me, it just came across as, oh, their culture, and everything about them, I just really
found them to be… I don’t even think you would get that in this country, you know, the
waiting in queues for water, helping people getting out, you know, yes, if anything happened,
then you would think, yes, because you know your money’s going to help them.
Only a small proportion of participants believed we should give to ‘Whoever needs it’,
regardless of the nationality or other characteristics of those in need, causes of the need,
etc.

Bruna: You don’t feel that we should look after our own first, as it were?
Meg: Oh, no, no. I think, where it’s needed. Basically, if a country needs water to toys in a
hospital, I think the water comes first, you know, to having toys here.

Some participants believed that only those who have paid taxes should receive help,
others that we are already giving through taxation.
Penny: And the other thing is that you're taxed. You're working hard, you're doing all these
things and you're paying all these bills. You're paying tax on your earnings so that's going to
the government, and supposedly that's meant to be divvied up to go to a bit of everything. So
you are giving, aren't you?
3.3.2. Why We Shouldn’t Help Distant Sufferers:
Participants provided a range or reasons to explain their unwillingness to help in humanitarian
need. Most of these reasons, but not all, referred to monetary donations.

One of the most frequent reasons for not giving was the participants’ perception that
nothing ever changes.
Keanu This has been going ever since I remember. It will go in the next generation and the
next generation. There's no end to it. It's just something that's going to stop because
Page 27 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
everybody’s giving money. It just will go on and on and on, constantly, generation after
generation, because they keep multiplying.

Others believed that we are not responsible for other countries, that we should solve our
problems first because there aren’t enough resources to help others too.
Betty: I don’t feel that I’m responsible for a child born in Africa, no. I have enough problems of
my own just looking after my people.
Omar: Well, the elderly, you know, you hear of care homes in trouble and so on; look after the
health service and so on. You know, we’ve got our own problems; let’s worry about that. Africa
will look after itself. The more money we pour in there, it’s not solving the problem. Let them
look after themselves.
Ogden: We can’t afford to give to everybody.

Some participants believed that only those who have paid taxes should receive help,
others that we are already giving through taxation.
Penny: And the other thing is that you're taxed. You're working hard, you're doing all these
things and you're paying all these bills. You're paying tax on your earnings so that's going to
the government, and supposedly that's meant to be divvied up to go to a bit of everything. So
you are giving, aren't you?

Other participants didn’t give because of Government’s corruption in the suffering country.
Betty: It’s not just that charity begins at home. It’s the fact that we give these people, these
Governments, huge amounts of money to the detriment of ourselves...
Belinda: Yes!
Betty: And they squander it, they rape and pillage their own countries, they do not help their
own people...
Belinda: No, they don’t.
Betty: Who the money is supposed to be going to.
Belinda: It actually creates more poverty and makes them very rich too.

Others didn’t give to overseas suffering because believed that a large percentage of their
donation would not reach the beneficiaries but would be used by NGOs or administration
costs or wasted.
Hank: The thing that’s always put me off is, like, say, you donate £10 for a family in India,
just, for example, running water. I would gladly give £10 if I knew it would get to them and it
would help them, but you think, well, probably £8 of that’ll be administration, backhanders,
government…
Page 28 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
Betty: I’d like to know how much this cost to sponsor a child. Half the money that goes to
sponsorship gets taken up with rubbish. You know, it doesn’t feed the people, it pays peoples’
wages, it pays for paper like this. You don’t need that to tell somebody there’s a poor man in
Africa. We all know that. We get it on the news every single day of the week. This is absolute
nonsense.

Many participants commented on the impact of recession on their lives and how it
discouraged them from giving to humanitarian causes
Pearl: But then I, going back to the giving, you know, money every month, my point is I work
damn hard and my partner, everything in this country has gone up horrifically, food, petrol,
diesel, whatever, and I think, well, you know, obviously I’m a working class person and all that
money that I'm making is for me and my family. So, you know, if the government can't do
something so...
Pattie: It’s a struggle for us when...
Pearl: It is a struggle.
Pattie: It’s a struggle at the moment. We don't have disposable income, you don't have...
children say when are we going on holiday, mum?, and you think, oh, God, I don't know.

Similarly, some participants believed that NGOs are targeting the wrong population and
that the rich should give first.
N: The trouble is, like, you see these people, like, all the time in the street come up to you
with the same kinds of things and the thing that always seems to me is that it’s really bad and
everything. It really is bad but you’re targeting the wrong people. Like, people in the street,
just everyday people, that are just doing their salary like, I don’t know, £20,000 or £30,000 or
something a year when, like, there are billionaires in the world with, like, offshore bank
accounts and everything who probably could get rid of most of this just by putting a few like
million or something. So to me it seems like, kind of, targeting the wrong people.

Participants also were worried about making monetary donations because of the danger of
fraud
Bridget: I don't think there's anything that helps now; most of these forms that I’m just
looking at are asking you for your credit card details. I think the old thing of where you can
put a cheque in the post, you know, because you wanted to something, something hits you
and you put a cheque in the post, okay, you know, that’s good. But all this, giving the credit
card number again, and you think are they going to suddenly take another donation, because
although it’s become very normal to give credit card numbers there’s nowhere...

Some participants expressed difficulties in connecting with distant suffering.
Hank: And it’s just… it’s close to your heart, whereas, like that guy said, you know, you
sponsor somebody on the other side of the world, it’s not… there’s no connection there. It’s
not being awful, but you tend to keep it more at home, you know.
Page 29 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1

Some participants reasoned that we don’t respond because we are desensitised.
Alan: We see all this advertised on TV and in the paper and everything but we don’t see any
changes. All they show us is suffering, suffering, suffering, suffering. So, we are kind of
getting mean to that, we see these people suffering so we don’t really make an effort or take
any notice of all these ads that are going around every day. We just think oh, okay, they are
suffering, big deal, I'm suffering too.

Others felt over-demanded and that there are too many humanitarian organisations
competing with each other.
Quinn: One thing that springs to mind, just when you look through all of that, seeing all these
different organisations, all vying for your attention, […] if there’s so many different
organisations saying they’re going to do this, in this area, you just think, who’s best to give my
money to, then?

Some participants felt they couldn’t engage with humanitarian issues because they are too
upsetting
Francine: It’s not like you don't want to know; it’s just you don't particularly want to read it.
You know what it’s going to be... you know what you're going to be getting yourself in for
reading it, so why put yourself through reading that. […] Like that one, this quote, it’s like
this quote from the kids or there's the quotes from the women saying, so you know then it’s
come from them themself. I don't want to read that. It’s just too much. Because you're like
putting yourself in that position and you start to feel it yourself and it’s not fair to play with
emotions like that and it’s not nice. You can't imagine what they've gone through and you
don't want to imagine what they’ve gone through, so I won't read it.

Only a very few participants stated that they didn’t help simply because they didn’t care.
Joshua: No, I don’t even think twice about it. We’ve got our own problems, so I haven’t been
working for a while. You know, that’s my concern. You know, to get myself sorted out, rather
than, before looking anywhere else, and to be honest, I’d rather pay a thing for a dog thing or
an animal than a human. Don’t ask me why I feel like that, because I don’t give a shit about
humans really.
Fawzia : I just don't really care about these people, that's just it. I think I just have to worry
about... I want to say yes and then five minutes later I will completely have forgotten about it,
so...
Page 30 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
3.3. Structural Reasons:

One of the most frequent reasons for not giving was the participants’ perception that
nothing ever changes.
Keanu: This has been going ever since I remember. It will go in the next generation and the
next generation. There's no end to it. It's just something that's going to stop because
everybody’s giving money. It just will go on and on and on, constantly, generation after
generation, because they keep multiplying.

Some participants believed that foreign aid damages the sufferer and that it is better not
to interfere with the natural course of things
Ogden: One of the dilemmas that again has been highlighted is that in some circumstances
you can, I wouldn’t say do more damage than good, that’s probably not right, but you can
certainly muddy the waters because you can give aid and these people become dependent on
that aid and they’ll never help themselves. I mean, the classic case, again this is from the
Lions so I’m afraid that will crop up, but there’s an international scheme, Water Aid, where
provide water tablets, we provide pumps, we provide all sorts for people to have their own
clear, clean water supply, which is great in theory. You stick that in, somewhere in Africa and
of course the whole of the population gather around that one waterhole which means that,
over time, all the wood around that waterhole is used up and it’s used up because they’re
building fires, they’re building homes and whatever. And so you’ve upset the natural order of
things because so many people, it would be no matter, whatever walking around the country,
they suddenly gather at one spot and there’s no infrastructure for that. So there are these
knock-on effects, albeit the initial thing is a good cause to do it. We are glad we have but it’s
surprising how these things can have this domino effect.

Other participants didn’t give because of Government’s corruption in the suffering country.
Betty: It’s not just that charity begins at home. It’s the fact that we give these people, these
Governments, huge amounts of money to the detriment of ourselves...
Belinda: Yes!
Betty: And they squander it, they rape and pillage their own countries, they do not help their
own people...
Belinda: No, they don’t.
Betty: Who the money is supposed to be going to.
Belinda: It actually creates more poverty and makes them very rich too.

Others believed that monetary donations address the symptom not the cause
Quincy: I mean, I think the argument is… the whole thing’s inefficient. If I should, anyway, if I
should… just handing over the money. It’s not necessarily the answer. There’s all the
sustainability, you know. You need to educate people, it’s not about sending this or sending
Page 31 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
people out to other countries, but if there’s a specialism that’s required, you’d bring that
across, you educate, you bring everything up to a level. Just, like, you don’t just provide
water, you give them the wells and all the rest of it, and try to build it, but I don’t think that
necessarily would…that’s not going to solve the problem.

Some participants believed they were equally suffering and invoked stoicism.
Flora: I just feel like everyone has their own worries, everyone has their own things going on
at home, whether it’s been losing a family member due to cancer or what and I just think that
they're bombarding you with their worries but you've got your own worries, do you know what
I mean? Everyone’s got something traumatic that's going off in their life, whether it’s
something big or something small, but you don't see me going out in the street because my
mam is dying of cancer, bombarding everybody in the street to give to cancer. You just get on
with it, don't you? You then feel strong about cancer so you'll give to cancer, but I just think
they have their worries, they’ve got their worries, I’ve got my worries. I deal with it myself.
You don't see me bringing out TV adverts, I’ve just lost my auntie to cancer, do you? Do you
know what I mean? I just think everyone’s got their own worries, deal with it yourself.

For the vast majority of those participants believing in the importance of the role of
politics in change, this translated into further self-disempowerment and justification for
not intervening in humanitarian cause:
Hugh: Because, I mean, I think we’re all mankind, we need to help everybody, but we as
individuals don’t have the ability to help everybody. […] As bad as it gets, we don’t suffer an
ounce to what people all over the world suffer in these countries, through no fault of their
own. But I see what we can do. I don’t see that giving £10 a month is going to help them.
It’s political and it needs to start from the top; these people need to be helped from the top,
from their own government.
Page 32 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
Appendix A: KARMA’s Research Aims, Methodology and Ethics
Background:
The frequency and scale of humanitarian disasters is increasing, as reflected in their high
visibility in the global media. Whilst still responding generously to humanitarian emergencies,
the British public seems to be increasingly critical of and reluctant to commit to on-going
support of humanitarian and international development agencies. In these highly challenging
times for the humanitarian sector and humanitarianism more generally, it seems ever more
urgent to understand how the public relates and responds to humanitarian crises and
international development causes.
The KARMA study sought to shed new light on the UK public’s understandings and
reactions to humanitarian communications, including campaigns about international
development issues and humanitarian appeals. To do so this study explored how people
make sense of the images and narratives of distant suffering that agencies generate and how
ideologies, emotions and biographical experiences shape those responses. This study also
explored how agencies plan and think about their communications. The specific research
questions addressed by this study are as follows:




What are the public’s immediate responses to humanitarian messages and what do
people do with their knowledge?
What kinds of motivations and influences inform their actions? How do people justify
and explain their responses?
What biographical and emotional factors might facilitate or discourage moral action?
How do the public's moral responses correspond (or not) with what humanitarian
agencies hope for, and with their thinking about the communications they produce?
Methodology:
The data collection for this study was spread over the following three phases:
 A series of 18 demographically representative focus groups throughout the UK (total
162 people)
 Interviews with members of humanitarian agencies, which will allow for an
investigation of the relationship between the production and reception of humanitarian
messages
 A series of in-depth one-on-one interviews with 10 audience members.
Page 33 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
Ethics:
To ensure the protection of participants’ sensitive information and privacy, all of their names
have been replaced with pseudonyms in all publications, and their information has been kept
confidential and only accessible to members of the research project. Additionally, all
participants were informed of the nature of the project and given the following information
sheet and consent form.
Information Sheet
Small world: Attitudes towards and perceptions of what goes on around us in the world
We would like you to take part in this research project. It is funded by the Leverhulme Trust and is carried out
independently by the Psychosocial Studies Department, Birkbeck, in collaboration with the Media and
Communications Department, LSE.
You have been contacted at random by interviewers from The Field Department to help us with this project. Your
participation is voluntary and much appreciated. We would like you to participate in this study as we believe that
you can make an important contribution to the research. If you do not wish to participate you are free to drop out at
any time.
If you are happy to participate, please read this information sheet and sign the consent form. We will then ask you
to participate in an informal focus group discussion with eight other people like yourself. The group discussion will
be lead by Dr. Bruna Seu and/or Dr. Frances Flanagan from Birkbeck, University of London. At the discussion you will
be given an information pack and you will be asked to describe and discuss your responses and your thoughts. The
discussion should last approximately an hour and a half and refreshments will be served. The discussion will be
audio and videotaped for internal use by the researchers only, and will not be seen or heard by anyone outside this
study.
After the focus group discussions are completed some people may be given the opportunity to take part in a followup discussion at a future date just on a one-to-one basis with Bruna where they have the chance to express their
views in greater detail. We very much hope that people will want to take up this offer and have found in the past
that it is something past participants have enjoyed doing very much. If you are requested to participate in this
follow-up interview, you will be given a detailed explanation of the process at that stage, a separate consent form,
as well as an additional incentive payment.
What are the possible disadvantages and risk of taking part?
Some of the material you will look at in the focus group may be disturbing, and may stir up emotions or thoughts
that you find uncomfortable in the same way as some people find some newspaper or TV coverage uncomfortable.
What are the possible benefits of taking part?
People enjoy these discussions very much – it’s a place where many different viewpoints are exchanged and where
there are no right and wrong answers. You will receive £35 as a token of our thanks for your participation once the
discussion is finished. You may also find the opportunity to discuss and reflect on the issues interesting and
informative, and by giving your time in this way you will have made a contribution to an important research field.
What will be done with the research?
We are hoping to write a book and a number of articles based on the research.
Will my responses be kept confidential?
Page 34 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
All the personal information you provide to us will be kept strictly confidential at all times, and only members of the
research team will have access to that information. The responses you give to our questions will be anonymised.
Identifiable responses will not be provided to any other third party. Information emanating from the study will only
be made public in a completely unattributable format or at the aggregate level in order to ensure that no participant
will be identified.
All data collection, storage and processing will comply with the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the EU
Directive 95/46 on Data Protection.
Who can I contact with any questions about the study?
If you have any questions about the study or any information you wish to add after the focus group is complete,
please contact Dr Frances Flanagan on 020 7631 6678 or f.flanagan@bbk.ac.uk or Dr Bruna Seu on 020 7631 6539 or
b.seu@bbk.ac.uk . Dr Flanagan and Dr Seu’s mailing address is School of Psychosocial Studies, Birkbeck, University
of London, Malet St, London WC1 E7HX.
Thank you in advance for all your help.
Page 35 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
Participant Consent Form
I have read the participant information sheet for this research project and understand the following:
1. That I am free to withdraw at any time
2. That all information I provide will be dealt with in a confidential manner
3. I agree that the researcher may contact me after the focus group
Signed…………………………………………………………………………………..
Print name ……………………………………………………………………………
Address…………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
Email address ……………………………………………………………………….
Telephone Number………………………………………………………………
Date……………………………………………………………………………………..
Page 36 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
Appendix B: Table of Participant Demographics
Socioeconomic
grouping
Sex [M/F]
Occupation
Ethnicity
Sexuality
Marital Status and
age of children (if
any)
Albert
C1
Male
19
Administrator
White British
Straight
Single
Allen
B
Male
25
Financial Controller
Bengali
Straight
Co-hab
Andrew
B
Male
21
Quantity Surveyor
White British
Straight
Single
Alex
C1
Male
18
Student
White British
Gay
Single
Aaron
C1
Male
25
Corporate Travel
Consultant
White British
Straight
Single
Adam
C1
Male
23
Media Operations
Black African/White
Mixed race
Straight
Single
Anthony
C1
Male
20
Retail Supervisor
Black Caribbean
Straight
Single
Alistair
B
Male
25
Credit Manager
Black African
Straight
Single
Adrian
C1
Male
18
Student
White British
Gay
Single
Bridget
C2
Female
60
Avon Lady
White British
Straight
Widow, empty
nester
Bonnie
C2
Female
64
Complimentary
Therapist
Afro-Caribbean
Straight
Co-hab, Empty
Nester
Belinda
C2
Female
60
Part-Time Yoga
Instructor
Black British
Straight
Separated, 2 kids
ages 18 & 22
Becky
E
Female
65
Retired
White British
Straight
Separated, empty
nester
Barbara
D
Female
56
Market Trader
White British
Straight
Married, kid age 19
Betty
C2
Female
56
Cook
White British
Straight
Single
Blanca
C2
Female
56
Teaching Assistant
White British
Straight
Married, 2 kids
ages 18 & 19
Billie
C2
Female
60
Music Teaching
Assistant
White British
Straight
Widow, empty
nester
Brenda
E
Female
65
Retired
White British
Straight
Married, empty
nester
Candice
C1
Female
65
Cleaner
White British
Straight
Co-hab
Caroline
C1
Female
65
Retired Teacher
White British
Straight
Divorced
Cathy
C2
Female
73
Retired Appliance Fitter
White British
Straight
Widow
Cordelia
C2
Female
65
Retired House Cleaner
White British
Straight
Married
Carmen
C1
Female
65
Retired Antiques Dealer
White British
Straight
Married
Pseudonym
Age
Page 37 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
Cynthia
C2
Female
68
Retired NHS
Maintenance Worker
White British
Straight
Divorced, kid age
44
Chloe
C1
Female
65
Book Keeper
Jewish
Straight
Single
Christina
C!
Female
70
Retired Book Keeper
White British
Straight
Married
Claire
C1
Female
73
House Sitter
White British
Straight
Divorced
Dwight
C2
Male
35
Bricklayer
Irish White
Straight
Single
Daniel
C1
Male
37
Credit Admin
White British
Gay
Single
Darren
C2
Male
41
Painter and Decorator
White British
Straight
Single, 2 kids ages
2 & 13
Damien
C1
Male
45
Sergeant Major
Scottish White
Gay
Single
Dennis
C1
Male
37
Bar Manager
White British
Gay
Single
Desmond
C1
Male
45
Artist
White British
Straight
Divorced
Dominic
C2
Male
44
Printer
White British
Straight
Co-hab
Don
C2
Male
39
Train Driver
White British
Gay
Co-hab
Doug
C2
Male
37
Block Paver
White British
Straight
Married
Edward
C1
Male
56
Civil Servant
White
Gay
Married
Edgar
C1
Male
56
Manager
White
Gay
Married
Edmund
C2
Male
56
HGV
Black
Straight
Married, empty
nester
Ernie
C2
Male
56
Builder
White
Straight
Married, empty
nester
Eamon
C2
Male
60
Retired Electrician
White
Straight
Co-hab, empty
nester
Eddie
C1
Male
64
Retired manager,
White
Straight
Married, empty
nester
Edison
C1
Male
63
Retired Company
Director
White
Straight
Married, empty
nester
Earl
C1
Male
65
Retired Police Officer,
White
Straight
Married, empty
nester
Florence
C2
Female
20
Student
Black
Straight
Single
Francesca
C2
Female
22
Housewife
Black
Straight
Single, kid age 2
Francine
D
Female
20
Domestic Cleaner
White
Straight
Couple
Fawzia
E
Female
25
Housewife
White
Straight
Felicity
C2
Female
25
Housewife
White
Straight
Single, kid age 5
Couple, 2 kids ages
9&3
Page 38 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
Couple
Felicia
D
Female
Fiona
D
Female
22
Counter Assistant
White
Straight
Couple, 2 kids ages
3&1
Flora
C2
Female
21
Sales
White
Straight
Single
Freda
E
Female
21
Housewife
White
Straight
Single, 6 months
Gabrielle
B
Female
65
Retired Accounts
Secretary
Jewish
Straight
Married, empty
nester
Gail
B
Female
65
Retired Box Office
Cashier
Straight
Married, empty
nester
Gemma
C1
Female
67
Retired Nurse
White British
Straight
Married, empty
nester
Genevieve
B
Female
66
Retired Secretary
Jewish
Straight
Married, empty
nester
Georgia
C1
Female
70
Retired Deli Owner
White British
Straight
Widowed, empty
nester
Gaynor
C1
Female
71
Retired Senior
Administrator
White British
Straight
Widowed, empty
nester
Geraldine
B
Female
66
Retired Property
manager
Jewish
Straight
Divorced, empty
nester
Gita
B
Female
65
Housewife
Jewish
Straight
Married, empty
nester
Gertrude
C1
Female
68
Retired Retail Manager
White British
Straight
Divorced, empty
nester
Harry
D
Male
50
Panel beater
White British
Straight
Married, kid age 15
Hal
E
Male
46
Unemployed Printer
White British
Straight
Married, kid age 18
Hamid
E
Male
Married, 2 kids
ages 9 & 10
Hamish
D
Male
25
Unemployed
White
White British
Straight
47
Unemployed Builder
White British
Straight
46
Taxi driver
Black Caribbean
Straight
Co-hab, 2 kids ages
4&6
Married, empty
nester
D
Male
52
Wagon Loader
Mixed Race
Straight
C2
Male
48
Painter/Decorator
White British
Straight
Habib
C2
Male
46
Publican
White British
Straight
Married, empty
nester
Co-hab, 3 kids ages
15, 17 & 18
Halim
C2
Male
47
Joiner (self-employed)
White British
Straight
Married, 2 kids
ages 4 & 20
Hanif
C2
Male
47
Painter/Decorator
White British
Straight
Married, 3 kids
ages 15, 17 & 19
Ingrid
AB
Female
47
Care home manager
White British
Straight
Co-hab, kid age 9
Iris
AB
Female
54
Accountant
White British
Straight
Married, empty
nester
Ida
C1
Female
Straight
Divorced, kid age
16
Ianthe
C1
Female
Straight
Divorced, kid age
18
Hank
Hans
56
50
Sales Administrator
Administrator
White British
White British
Page 39 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
Married, 2 kids
ages 18 & 16
C1
Female
47
Estate Agent
White British
Straight
AB
Female
53
Telecommunications
Manager
White British
Straight
Isabella
AB
Female
52
Lawyer
White British
Straight
Married, 2 kids
ages 13 & 19
Divorced, 2 kids
ages 8 & 14
Isla
C1
Female
50
property manager
White British
Gay
Single
Julian
C2
Male
35
Painter/Decorator
White British
Straight
Co-hab, kid age 2
Jonathan
E
Male
29
Registered Disabled
White British
Straight
Married, kid age 4
Jack
C2
Male
35
Windscreen Fitter
White British
Straight
Married, 3 kids
ages 5, 7 & 16
Jeremy
D
Male
26
Sales Assistant
Black
Straight
Single
Joshua
D
Male
34
Steel Polisher
White British
Straight
Married
John
C2
Male
33
Musician
White British
Straight
Single
Jerry
D
Male
28
Packer
White British
Straight
Co-hab
James
E
Male
35
Unemployed
White British
Straight
Co-hab
Jim
D
Male
28
Call Centre Assistant
White British
Straight
Single
Kevin
D
Male
70
Gardener
White
Straight
Married, empty
nester
Kieran
D
Male
66
Retired Groundskeeper
White
Straight
Married, empty
nester
Kai
D
Male
72
Retired Factory Worker
White
Straight
Married, empty
nester
Kaleb
D
Male
66
Gardener
White
Straight
Married, empty
nester
Kane
C2
Male
65
Painter/Decorator
White
Straight
Married, empty
nester
Keanu
D
Male
65
Retired Postman
White
Straight
Married, empty
nester
Keith
C2
Male
67
Retired Tool Setter
White
Straight
Married, empty
nester
Ken
C2
Male
69
Retired Toolmaker
White
Straight
Married, empty
nester
Keon
C2
Male
65
Retired HGV Driver
Italian
Straight
Married, 3 kids
ages 37, 15 & 13
Lucy
B
Female
35
Teacher
White
Gay
Co-hab
Layla
C1
Female
26
Administrator
Black British
Straight
Single
Lane
Lara
B
Female
31
Teacher
White
Straight
Married, expecting
first baby
C1
Female
32
Data Analyst
White
Straight
Married, expecting
first baby
Imogen
Indigo
Page 40 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
Larissa
B
Female
30
Office Manager
White
Straight
Co-hab, 2 kids ages
3 & 9 months
Latifa
B
Female
30
Accountant
White
Straight
Co-hab
Leanne
C1
Female
33
Financial Investigator
White
Straight
Married, kid age 2
Lia
C1
Female
26
Student
Mixed Race
Caribbean
Straight
Co-hab, kid age 3
Melissa
B
Female
26
Accountant
White
Straight
Married
Mary
C1 (C2)
Female
47
School Support Worker
English
Straight
Married, 2 kids
ages 17 & 15
Marianne
C2
Female
46
Housewife
Pakistani
Straight
Married
Michelle
C1
Female
46
Social Worker
English
Straight
Separated, 2 kids
ages 17 & 14
Michaela
C1
Female
50
Sales Assistant
English
Straight
Divorced, kid age
10
Monica
C2
Female
47
Merchandiser
English
Straight
Married
Milly
C1
Female
55
Sales Assistant
English
Straight
Married, kid age 28
Meg
C2
Female
43
Hospital Technician
English
Straight
Married
Marcie
C2
Female
49
Theatre Technician
English
Straight
Married. 2 kids
ages 24 & 26
Nathan
C1
Male
19
Call Centre Assistant
English
Straight
Single
Nigel
C2
Male
18
Student
English
Straight
Single
Nick
C2
Male
23
Mechanic
English
Straight
Single
Neil
C1
Male
22
Carer Special Needs
Pakistani
Straight
Single
Neville
C1
Male
18
Window Cleaner
English
Straight
Single
Newman
C1
Male
20
Student
English
Gay
Single
Nelson
C2
Male
20
Security Guard
English
Straight
Co-hab, kid age 10
months
Nathaniel
C1
Male
21
Student
English
Straight
Single
Nachman
C1
Male
Straight
Co-hab, 2 kids ages
1&3
Oliver
B1
Male
56-65
Lecturer
Welsh
Straight
Married, kids (ages
not specified)
Oscar
C1
Male
56-65
Retired Agriculture
Officer
Welsh
Straight
Married, kid age 16
Otto
C1
Male
56-65
Retired Financial
Advisor
Welsh
Straight
Married kids (ages
not specified)
Oberon
B
Male
56-65
Retired Police Inspector
Welsh
Straight
Married kids (ages
not specified)
21
Manager
English
Page 41 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
Octovio
B
Male
Straight
Married
Ogden
B
Welsh
Straight
Married, kids (ages
not specified)
Omar
Hostel Manager
Welsh
Straight
Married, kids (ages
not specified)
56-65
Retired Agricultural
Chemist
Welsh
Straight
Married
56-65
Retired Banker
Welsh
Straight
Married, kids (ages
not specified)
45
Housekeeper
Welsh
Straight
Single
Female
42
Unemployed
Welsh
Straight
Single, kid age 17
D
Female
43
Kitchen Assistant
Welsh
Straight
Married, 2 kids
ages 7 & 9
Pearl
D
Female
43
Shop Assistant
English
Straight
Single
Pam
C2
Female
*
Shop Manager
Welsh
Straight
Married
Pattie
D
Female
45
not working
Welsh
Straight
Married, 3 kids
ages 16, 15 & 13
Paula
C2
Female
42
classroom assistant
Welsh
Straight
Married, kid age 7
Quincy
B
Male
36
Account Manager
White
Gay
Co-hab
Quinn
C1
Male
44
Fire-fighter
Indian
Straight
Married, kid age 18
Qadair
B
Male
41
Property Agent
White
Straight
Married, kid age 2
Quimby
B
Male
36
Teacher
Indian
Straight
Engaged
Quigley
C1
Male
42
Prison Officer
White
Straight
Married, 3 kids
ages 8, 12 & 15
Quennel
A
Male
44
Operations Director
White
Straight
Married, 2 kids
ages 16 & 18
Quasim
B
Male
39
Chartered Surveyor
White
Straight
Married, 3 kids
ages 8, 11, & 13
Quade
B
Male
36
Architect
White
Straight
Single
Quimat
Rachel
B
Male
36
Management
Development
White
Straight
Married, kid age 1
C1
Female
26
Freelance Illustrator
White British
Straight
Single
C2
Female
29
Barmaid
White British
Straight
Co-hab, pregnant
C2
Female
35
Housewife
Indian
Straight
Married, kids (age
not specified)
C1
Female
26
Student
White British
Straight
Single
C1
Female
35
Horticultural Therapist
White British
Straight
56-65
Retired Maths Teacher
Male
56-65
Retired Museum
Administrator
C1
Male
56-65
Orion
B
Male
Orlando
B
Male
Polly
C2
Female
Patricia
D
Penny
Welsh
Rebecca
Regina
Rita
Raina
Single, kid age 11
Page 42 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
Renee
C2
Female
33
Part-time Jeweller
White British
Straight
Married, 2 kids
ages 4 & 6
C1
Female
33
Civil Servant
White British
Straight
Married, kid age 3
C2
Female
29
Administrator
White British
Straight
Co-hab
Rana
Reba
Page 43 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
Appendix C: Semi-Structured Interview Schedule
I would like to get a general idea of your response to what you have seen. Any kind of
comment will be really helpful; it can relate to one particular appeal or campaign you have
seen now, or to more than one, or to something else you have seen or heard even though it
is not covered here.
This part of the discussion will be free flowing and I will say little at this stage apart from
asking for clarification. Feel free to respond to each other without coming back to me at this
stage.
What is your reaction (thoughts, feelings) in reading this information?
a. What gut reaction did you have when you read this information?
b. Could you give me two or three words that would summarise your main feelings after
seeing the information?
c. How do you feel about the victims?
d. Are there any elements to the communication which arouse a particularly strong emotional
reaction in you?
e. Which of these feelings makes you want to do something?/ which instead makes you want
to turn away?
What kind of thoughts did you have when you saw the information in your pack
Could you summarise your general attitude/the way you think about these issues?
Often people comment that we should look after our own first – do you agree? What are your
thoughts on this - do you think we are responsible for distant strangers? Do you think we, as
individuals and communities, ought to help other people, like the ones described in the
leaflets, who are so distant from us?
In what circumstances do you think it is appropriate for people from other countries to help
people suffering in faraway places?
Some people say that money won’t help, but also that giving money is not the best way to
help the humanitarian cause. What is your opinion on this? Do you have any thoughts on
what else people could do to help?
Do you feel you can help or make a difference in any way? What do you think would make
you feel you can make a difference?
What do you think are the factors the prevent people from doing more about these issues?
Page 44 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
If you were in a humanitarian crisis or a victim of HR abuse, what do you think you would
want happen?
I imagine you have seen this kind of information before, right? Let’s start with few general
questions:
a. What is your ordinary response to information of this kind: (prompts: what are your
thoughts and feelings when you get one of these?) Remember, there isn’t a right or wrong
answer; please be as honest as you can.
b. Does any of these appeals produce guilt in any of you? How do you react to guilt? Does it
spur you into action?
c. If not guilt, what do you feel would help you to contribute or/and act?
d. What are your feelings when you see appeals of this kind on a train, in a newspaper or
when it comes through your letterbox? Were the feelings you experienced today different to
what you experience in those circumstances?
e. Does it make a difference where you see them (e.g. do you have a different response if
the appeal comes through your letterbox rather than seeing it on a train?)
f. What do you ordinarily do when you get it? (Prompts: do you read it? Bin it? Put it away to
read it later? Ignore it? Donate? )
I would like you to go back to your information pack and go through the information more
carefully. Feel free to scribble on them if something in particular strikes you and/or highlight
particular words. When there is text to read, I would like you to behave as you would
ordinarily: read it to the end if that’s what you would normally do or make a note of where
you stopped reading and, if you can, why you stopped at that point.
a. Which, if any, of these leaflets would you pay attention to if you received them through
your letterbox or saw them in the street? Which ones would you read? Why?
b. Do the appeals speak to you? What do you understand their message(s) to be?
c. Is the message in some of the appeals clearer than in others? You might want to give
different answers for different appeals.
d. I want to ask you now about the amount of information contained in these appeals. Do
you feel it would make a difference to have more/less information? How does it?
e. Does the individual story make a difference? In what way?
f. Does it make a difference if there is a visual image? Does it matter if the image is realistic
rather than staged?
Page 45 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
g. Does it make a difference if the situation is an emergency rather than an ongoing
situation?
Before I have asked you to describe your reactions in general, now I would like you to be
more specific. I am going to ask you about specific actions in relations to the information in
your pack:
a. Which appeals you would ignore or throw away – why?
b. Which ones would make you donate (this include one-off donations) – why?
c. Which ones would motivate you to find out more about the issue or the organization?
d. Which ones would motivate you to do something else (volunteer, join an organization, read
more about independently, write a letter or anything else) – what would that be?
e. Which ones would stay with you; is likely to make you think about it tomorrow/ in a week’s
time?
f. Does it make a difference if the problem is a natural disaster rather than something caused
by other human beings?
g. Some people say that it helps them to respond if the appeal mentions a clear solution. Do
you feel the same? How does it work for you?
h. What do you think of the solutions that the leaflets recommend?
i. Is there anything that you would like to see in appeals that would stimulate you into action?
j. If you decide to act (by donating, volunteering, writing a letter etc) how does that action
make you feel? (possible prompts: relieved, proud, excited, empowered, as though I have
been true to my values/faith/obligations, connected to others, informed)
k. Do you think these organizations have given a fair representation of the issues in these
leaflets?
l. Are any of the organizations who have produced these leaflets familiar to you? Do their
values accord with your own?
m. Are there any organizations here you do not trust?
n. A lot of these leaflets mention money – how do you think the money will be spent? Does it
matter to you to know how the money gets spent?
o. Do you trust these organizations to spend the money they are given appropriately?
Page 46 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
Some people say it’s a miracle that we care and help others in the first place. What do you
think makes people get involved in these kind of issues?
1. Do you think of yourself as a moral person? Why? (remember, I am not assuming you are
not; I’m fascinated by how people think about these things)
2. Which of these institutions, if any, do you see as part of your moral community: family,
friends, church, the state, charities, workplace, the media?
3. I am sure you currently are or have in the past taken care of others in some way (e.g.
friends, partners, elderly relatives, children, neighbours, pets etc.), but do you feel personally
involved in any of the issues described by the leaflet? Do you feel the appeals speak to you
personally? In short, do you feel this is your business?
4. I am sure you know or have known people in the past who have been in need of care of
some kind (eg. friends, partners, elderly relatives, children, neighbours). What do you do to
express your concern? Why?
5. Have you ever given time or money to a charitable organisation? Which one, why, do you
still do? Why not? (possible prompts: to make a difference; because my values/religion oblige
me to; to meet likeminded people; to be part of something bigger than myself; to make me
feel less guilty; to develop as a person)
6. Do any of your friends or family give time or money to charities? Does that influence your
decision to give/not give, and who to give to?
7. What, if anything, would make you give to a charitable organisation?
8. If you have children, would you like them to give to a charity (/when they are older)?
Why/why not?
9. Do you think the way that Governments deal with these issues has an impact on the way
you think about them?
10. What about the media?
I would like you to get into pairs and ask each other the following questions. You have about
10 mins – at the end you will tell us what your partner has said. Please do take notes if it
helps.
1. Tell us about a time when you first became aware of moral issues beyond your family (e.g.
cruelty to animals, homelessness, world poverty etc.) Tell us what happened (e.g. how it
happened, how you felt, what you did)
2. Do you remember the first time you responded to a humanitarian/charity appeal or any
other request for help to others who were suffering? Can you tell us about it?
Page 47 of 48
Focus group report 2: knowledge, reactions, moral actions. Easytoread
v.1
3. Where or from whom did you learn to do this/ who inspired you/ set the example for you?
(parents, teachers, friend, relatives, spiritual leader, historical figure, historical event?)
4. Have you always thought/felt/behaved the way you do now, or can you identify something
that made you change in respect to these issues?
Again in pairs:
5. Do you remember any time in your life when you helped a stranger in need? It could be
when you were a child or at any time in your life. What happened? What made you do it?
6. Can you think of an instance when you have been helped by a stranger?
7. Can you think of a time in which you were vulnerable and required assistance in order to
function independently? (eg. childhood, a time when you were sick or disabled, lacking in
skills or education, poor or marginalised). What happened? Did anybody help?
Page 48 of 48