I can only answer for the effectiveness of fundraising messages that use behavioural science. It’s true that the effectiveness of nudges might differ across cultures. Some cultures may be more (or less) susceptible to a certain bias. Hence, if that bias is used in a fundraising message it will be more (or less) effective for that population.

For example, loss aversion bias predicts that people will respond more when faced with potential losses than potential gains. Based on this, fundraisers should demonstrate the losses that could be incurred if one doesn’t help rather than the gains that could be achieved if one does help. However, a few studies have found a smaller impact of loss aversion among Asian cultures (e.g., Levinson and Peng 2006; Arkes, Hirshleifer, Jiang & Lim, 2010). Thus, using the loss aversion bias in a fundraising context with this population might not lead to increased responses.

Further differences have been found between masculine cultures (USA, Canada) and feminine cultures (Denmark, Norway) towards appeals with egoistic or altruistic motives (see paper from Nelson, Brunel, Supphellen, Manchanda, 2006). In masculine cultures, men preferred the egoistic ad and women preferred the altruistic one. In feminine cultures, where women are agentic and men are allowed to be nurturing, the opposite was the case.

Differences have also been found between individualistic (USA) and collectivistic (Korea) cultures towards emotional or rational fundraising messages that were focusing either on the in-group or the out-group (see paper from Kim, 2016). Korean participants responded more positively to an emotional ad with an in-group focus. On the contrary, USA participants responded more to rational appeals while the focus on either the in-group or out-group didn’t make any difference.

All this to say that there’s a lot of research looking at such differences. For your talk, it might be more manageable if you focused on a specific group and do some quick search about it on Google Scholar. The take-away message though should be that nothing should be taken for granted; nudges, and previously successful fundraising approaches shouldn’t be applied without being tested first to evaluate their effectiveness with that specific audience and circumstances.

A concept that will definitely be useful for your talk about diverse groups is donor identity. Each and every one of us has multiple identities determined either by birth e.g. race, gender or by choice e.g. fundraiser, parent. When active, each identity can influence our behaviour and choices. By priming people’s diverse identities, whether that’s their religion, culture or disability, and by referencing them in your fundraising messages could enhance engagement and responses. The trick is to know how best to prime or reference this identity. If you’re ever interested in looking into this further, I’d be happy to help.

For a quick background you might want to read or re-read these Agitator posts on donor identity:

How Donors Choose Among Nonprofits: The Role of Identity.  Donors don’t give to the most urgent needs. They give to causes that mean something to them. Factors that commonly influence donors are identified in this post.

Identity vs. Persona. Why the two are not the same.

RFM Segmentation: First Refuge of the Scoundrel– Why segmenting by donor identity focuses on the primary question: “what donors will want to get this communication?” Explains how RFM fits in, but why it’s not all that important.

Testing Your Donor Identities– Outlines how to inexpensively determine the meaningful differences between identities