4 Tips When Using Cognitive Biases
In the previous posts, we busted some myths and explained the risks of having a simplified view of biases. Taking both into account, I’ll close the week with 4 short recommendations.
1. Avoid “all or nothing” thinking. Don’t believe in the universal application of biases – don’t assume that an effect observed in one context will automatically apply in another. At the same time, don’t be quick to think a bias doesn’t exist – failure to replicate an effect doesn’t automatically invalidate it.
2. Replication is necessary. Findings from just one study, though interesting, aren’t conclusive. Avoid applying a brand-new insight before replicating it. There needs to be repeated testing in similar and different contexts before we can draw valid conclusions for a specific bias. If an observed effect is real, failed replications help provide clarity around its effectiveness and applications.
3. Be aware of the context. When designing your test or intervention, consider the context carefully as it might influence the outcome. Failure to replicate the effect could be down to that. Even if you think the circumstances are exactly the same, remember that no study can control for all confounding variables.
4. Hypothesize and test. When it comes to biases, the right approach is testing. Even when you’re dealing with biases believed to have a wide application, you still should come up with a hypothesis and test it. Skipping this step could lead to ineffective or, worse, damaging applications.
Kiki
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer