Behavioral Science Posts

Does Giving Beget More Giving?

“Your best future donors are your best past donors.” Circular logic if there ever was. Let’s dig in a bit deeper. If you donated at 2pm today and got another solicitation at 1 minute past 2pm, would you give again? What about 2pm tomorrow? A week later, a month? Probably all of us have some […]

Learn More March 12, 2021

Two climbers walk into a bar…

A man and woman walk into a bar and sit beside a fundraiser. Stop me if you’ve heard this one. The Fundraiser says to the man and woman, “I work for a charity helping make sure outdoor enthusiasts have access to public lands.” In unison, the Man and Woman, say, “We just came here for […]

Learn More March 3, 2021

Walmart’s Mega Nudging Test

Walmart partnered with academics whose listing on the published paper reads like the credits on a Hollywood blockbuster movie, which is to say almost as long as the movie. The aim? Increasing flu vaccination rates in hopes it would provide guidance for increasing Covid vaccine uptake. This team of social scientists came up with 22 […]

Learn More March 1, 2021

Donor Autonomy on Steroids

Is there such a thing as giving too much control to donors? The sector generally operates as though donor control is bad at worst and undesirable at best This sector norm is reflected in many conventional practices: not publishing or promoting or making clear how donors names will be sold eight ways to Sunday […]

Learn More February 26, 2021

Do Rich Donors Differ from Not-Rich Donors? From “Middle”-Rich Donors?

Do people writing four figure checks (i.e. $1,000 to $9,999) have different needs from those donating $20 or those moving the comma and decimal point to the right for an even larger gift? What about the “high touch package to create an elevated donor experience” for the four-figure check group? This is a recommendation in […]

Learn More February 24, 2021

Cat People and Dog People

Are you a cat person or a dog person? The answer to that might impact your choice of a (potential) mate. A recent study explored this and the findings dance between “water is wet”to the “trivial” but with just enough “novel” to warrant mention. Let’s get trivial and water is wet out of the way. […]

Learn More February 17, 2021

Applying Science to Boost Sustainer Results

Here at the Agitator we post a lot on the use of behavioral science in fundraising. My purpose in badgering Kiki, Kevin and Stefano to keep their insights coming is because I believe the main purpose of their work is to use science to find and provide creative and practical solutions for fundraisers. I’m sure […]

Learn More January 29, 2021

Nudging to Improve Human Experience or Simply to Sound Smart?

There seems to be an obsession with biases lately and by extension, a flurry of consultants and agencies slapping “behavioral science” on their letterhead. While acknowledging biases as real and important to understand, considering biases as the one and only answer is dangerous. When examined solely through distinct biases, human behavior appears to be concrete […]

Learn More January 25, 2021

Donor or Activist?

What makes an activist different from a donor? Too often the former is thought of as a lead-gen exercise to source names to ‘convert’ them to the latter. Activists and donors are different. And while activists often donate that initial act of activism (e.g. the lead-gen petition signing) should not be thought of as a […]

Learn More January 22, 2021

On Stupidity

Most fundraisers know about the Pareto Principle—that 80% of an organization’s revenue comes from 20%, or fewer, of its donors. This handy rule of fundraising is a bastardization of the work of the 19th century Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, whose groundbreaking work helped develop the field modern economics with its data-oriented, scientific approach. Last evening […]

Learn More January 20, 2021

Ask A Behavioral Scientist

Behavioral Science Q & A

Q: As a designer who works with non-profits on fundraising strategy, I see the language like the following: “Our supporters help empower every girl, ensuring she has the resources she needs.” I do not think the word “help” is useful–I think “Our supporters empower every girl, ensuring she has the resources she needs. ” is much more engaging. Thoughts?

Whether “help” is more engaging or not really depends on the framing and context. The word help can sometimes weaken the perceived agency of the supporter, making their role feel secondary rather than central (your point). On the other hand, help can also signal collaboration rather than implying full ownership of the outcome, which might […]

Read Full Answer

Q: We started offering a donor cover option last april 1. The data to date suggests this may be dampening giving.eg. those who say yes to donor cover have a lower average gift (based on analysis of 6000+ gifts). I’m wondering if those who give lower gifts feel more guilt and therefore say yes to donor cover or if the presence of donor cover is making people adjust (lower) their gift size to accommodate the extra 3%. Would love any insights you have.

Great question! Here’s how behavioral science can help unpack what might be happening: Pain of Paying: Even a small extra charge can make giving feel more transactional than emotional, potentially reducing generosity. Fairness Concerns: Some donors might perceive donor cover as a surcharge rather than a contribution to the cause. If they feel the charity […]

Read Full Answer

Q: When writing an appeal, I waffle back and forth between writing “Your gift CAN…” or “Your gift WILL…” Any studies of which of these two words is best for an appeal?

The choice between “Your gift CAN…” and “Your gift WILL…” taps into the psychological framing of certainty vs. possibility. Currently, there is no academic research directly comparing these two framings in charitable appeals. However, I suspect no framing is universally better—the outcome likely depends on your target audience and the campaign’s goal. Here are some thoughts: Certainty Framing – […]

Read Full Answer

Q: Do you have any insight on whether integrating an individual giving appeal with other comms from the charity in both appearance and messaging can uplift results? Or does the actual appeal become ‘lost’ for lack of stand-out?

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

Q: Is there any research on response rate impact in direct mail when referring to a sustainer gift as ongoing or recurring (catching all frequencies) v. monthly or annual?

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

Q: A major conservation nonprofit sends me lots of mail, many of which have on the envelope “time to renew” or “2nd notice.” I find this practice deceptive, especially as I haven’t given to said organization since 1997. It must be effective or they wouldn’t do it. But is it ethical?

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