Default Bias
We are extremely likely to go with the default option, even when the stakes are high. Defaults signal that this is a popular option; they require minimal effort; and they make us focus on the positives of the selected option and forget about the other option. Interestingly, being transparent about using them doesn’t reduce their effectiveness.
Example
In Europe there are countries where almost everyone is a registered organ donor e.g. 100% Austrians and countries where almost no one is e.g. 12% Germans. The difference was the default option: in the former countries, you’re a donor unless you opt-out. In the latter, you’re not a donor unless you opt-in.
Fundraising opportunity
Where possible use default options and opt-out mechanisms. Be transparent and explain why you’re using them. This will increase your supporters’ trust to your organisation, while it won’t impact the effectiveness of the default.
Johnson, E.J., & Goldstein, D. (2003). Do defaults save lives?
Ask A Behavioral Scientist
Behavioral Science Q & A
Thanks so much for raising this. Yes, capturing donor information can be helpful for stewardship like newsletters, thank-you letters, impact updates. But how you ask matters. Forcing full data capture introduces friction that can significantly depress conversion, many donors may simply abandon the process. Beyond the friction itself, required fields also shift the emotional experience […]
Read Full Answer
Unlike holidays that everyone already knows, Giving Tuesday is a created event. Many donors recognize the name but not the exact timing, so referencing it becomes a helpful cue. It serves as a reminder and taps into social norm activation (“everyone’s giving today”), which boosts response. However, we still want it paired with the mission, […]
Read Full Answer
When a subject line leads with the match (“Your gift matched!”), it risks triggering market-norm thinking: the sense that giving is a financial transaction rather than an act rooted in values, identity, and care. This shift reduces intrinsic motivation and, over time, can weaken donor satisfaction and long-term engagement. It also makes the email indistinguishable […]
Read Full Answer
There’s no evidence that QR codes suppress mid-value giving; all available research suggests they either help or have no negative effect. In fact, behavioral and usability research consistently shows the opposite: reducing friction at any point in the donation process increases completion rates and total response. And that has nothing to do with capacity and […]
Read Full Answer
What you’re experiencing is very common. Resistance often isn’t about capability, but about motivation quality. If board members feel pushed into fundraising, that triggers controlled motivation (low quality motivation) i.e. obligation, guilt, or fear of judgment, which often results in avoidance. Instead, we need to create conditions for volitional motivation (high quality motivation) by satisfying […]
Read Full Answer
That’s a really thoughtful question, and you’re not the first to raise it. Many of our clients have been cautious about placing the ask at the very end. To address their concern, we’ve tested both approaches, and the results are clear: when the ask comes last, even if that means it appears on the second […]
Read Full Answer