Every single test should have both theory and evidence as its basis.  You could test a brown kraft envelope vs the plain white control, and then find some theory of human behavior that justifies this test. But, if you start with the theory, you may discover a better test idea.

Why do people give? Social science theory has a lot to say on that, offering a vast number of evidence-based test ideas.  Random ideas generate random, and often unsustainable results.  As Einstein said, if the facts don’t fit your theory, get new facts.

With this we share results of a cool test in Sweden putting one very well-known behavioral science nudge against a less well-known one.  The former was social proof messaging.  Every behavioral science hack worth his/her salt knows enough to trot out this well-worn nudge. ( As a sidebar, the evidence on this nudge working is mixed as confirmed by several meta-studies.)

It would seem if social proof is going to live on, it needs refinement and likely to be tied to situations or contexts or subsets of people where it might work since the evidence is clear: social proof is working about half the time and one needs to know what makes those “halves” different to keep recommending it.

But back to Sweden…

Emotion as a Nudge

The other far less well-known nudge was predicated on emotion.  Not the usual “make it emotional” non-recommendation recommendation.  Instead, they tested a more refined nudge based on evidence that emotion doesn’t just cause behavior but, more often than not, emotion is the goal of our behavior.

Said differently, people, as it turns out, don’t give because you make them feel sad; they give to feel good.  Making them feel sad may not even be a necessary first step. Anticipated emotion – the feeling I want to have – is the motivating force of giving.  Emphasize how giving will warm their heart, make them happy, or proud and people might give without the sadness-inducing, guilt tripping images and copy.

We’ve done our own testing on this and preliminary data show there’s merit to this idea. Using a client’s emergency email, we tested a P.S. that emphasized how giving could make you feel happier or proud. Below are the three different P.S.s we tested:

Control:  Your gift today will make a big difference when the next emergency hits.

Happy: Your gift today will make a big difference when the next emergency hits. Did you know that helping others can make us happier too?

Proud: Your gift today will make a big difference when the next emergency hits. Did you know that helping others can make us feel proud?

Compared to the control, the happy version increased revenue by 66% and the proud version by 81%. And that just by changing the P.S.

But back to Sweden…

These academics pitted social proof messaging against anticipated emotion using recycling machines in grocery stores that accept glass and aluminum cans and in return, give cash back.  At that point, the consumer has a choice to make by pressing one of two buttons on the machine: keep the money, or donate it to charity.  In the control condition, nothing about the machines was changed.

For each test condition, stickers were conspicuously added to the front of the machine with the relevant message.

The social proof sticker said,

• “In this store many people chose to donate their recycling credit”
• and another “thumbs up” sticker was placed beside the donate button.

The anticipated emotion sticker read,

• “It feels good to donate the recycling credit”
• and a smiley face sticker was placed next to the donate button.

The social proof nudge – the one that all amateur behavioral scientists will rattle off as a good idea – had no impact on donation rate versus the control machines (with no stickers or extra messaging).  The less well-known anticipated emotion nudge significantly lifted donate rate.

Recall, this theory of how emotion influences behavior does not match the typical fundraising consultant trope telling you people give because of how they feel and therefore make your appeals emotional.

Consequently, that guidance isn’t on the mark or, at best, is very incomplete as it lacks a necessary degree of specificity – what kind of emotion and how best to invoke it?

Here’s more complete guidance on the use of emotions in fundraising.

When it comes to positive emotions like sense of impact, happiness or nostalgia, go big.

As illustrated here, a positive feedback loop exists between helping and happiness.

• The happier I am, the more likely I am to help others, and helping others has a positive impact on my happiness.

• The impact that my donation has is a significant driver of this happiness.

• Thus, stressing the impact of a gift is crucial as it will initiate, or strengthen, this positive feedback loop between helping and happiness.

The use of negative emotions, however, like pity, sadness, fear or guilt, requires more caution.  It’s true that sad, or shocking, appeals catch our attention and create a ‘buzz’. They could also trigger our desire to feel better, which can lead to giving as a way to alleviate our sadness.

Nonetheless, the indiscriminate use of negative emotions by many charities can result in an emotional burn-out: people are exposed to so much suffering they become cynical and less responsive. Even within the context of a single appeal, if the intensity of negative emotions isn’t manageable, they might induce apathy; people might “switch off” and enter a state of withdrawal and non-responsiveness.

A negative emotion that shouldn’t be evoked under any circumstances, even in low intensity, is guilt. Yes, guilt motivates action in our everyday life; we do everything we can to avoid it.

This guilt aversion might motivate us to get out of the house during the weekend, despite how tired we may feel, only to avoid feeling guilty later, if we don’t. The same way, guilt might be effective in making people respond to a charitable appeal only not to feel guilty later on. You may see a surge in short-term revenue, but at what cost?

Would you go back to a situation that made you feel guilty? And yet, we expect donors who were guilted into giving to become committed supporters.

Kevin and Kiki