Altruism: The Vanilla Ice Cream of Moral Messaging
People give because they want to help others, feeling a sense of moral obligation or compassion to do so. Said differently, donating is an act of altruism or so the thinking goes.
Altruism is like vanilla ice cream: classic, dependable… and utterly plain. And the kicker? If you measure a variety of potential influences on giving and force altruism to compete on its own two feet, it rarely stands up.
Here’s but one example. This study measured trust, past behavior, attitudes and the linkage between the mission and the person (i.e. Identity) and the model output showing what explains giving is clear; altruism falls by the wayside, rejected, offering no explanatory power on the why of giving.
But here’s the rub: morality isn’t just fluff. It packs a punch, if—and it’s a big if—you get specific. Enter Moral Foundation Theory, five lenses onto the world.
- Care/harm: Sensitivity to suffering and the desire to alleviate it.
- Fairness/equity: Concern for fairness, justice, and reciprocity.
- Loyalty/betrayal: Allegiance to one’s group or tribe.
- Authority/subversion: Respect for hierarchy and tradition.
- Sanctity/degradation: Reverence for purity and disgust towards perceived contamination.
These aren’t random, people are pretty hard-wired to favor one or 2 over the others. Jane donates to prevent harm to animals. John gives because it’s only fair. And Aunt Edna? She’s all about loyalty.
Here’s a test we ran for a brand that we surmised, straddles the fence between care/harm and fairness/equity. The fairness/equity did best but the subtext is they have two Identity audiences and fairness works best for the more activist supporter while care/harm works for their older non activist folks.
When you tailor your message to their specific moral tune, you’re not just asking for a donation; you’re echoing their inner values.
Kevin
3 responses to “Altruism: The Vanilla Ice Cream of Moral Messaging”
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
A. Thank you. #2: Gawd, I feel both energized and stupid. I’ve never seen analyses this insanely useful. C. This checklist alone:
Care/harm: Sensitivity to suffering and the desire to alleviate it. (Strawberry, with a nod to the Indigenous harvest calendar)
Fairness/equity: Concern for fairness, justice, and reciprocity. (Rum raisin)
Loyalty/betrayal: Allegiance to one’s group or tribe. (Chocolate-chip mint or pistachio)
Authority/subversion: Respect for hierarchy and tradition. (Coffee)
Sanctity/degradation: Reverence for purity and disgust towards perceived contamination. (Anything developed by Ben & Jerry’s before they sold….)
Howdy Tom,
I’m kicking myself for not having continued the ice cream analogy. Genius, love it. Thanks.
Thank you for this. Very inspiring. Also love Tom’s comments (as always.)