Behavioral Science Posts

A Closer Look at the Big Five and Personalized Persuasion

My last post introduced the “Big Five” or “Five-Factor” model of personality traits and offered a glimpse of the way personality insights can be useful for donor segmentation and campaign messaging. We’re sticking with these topics in this post but going a little deeper. A Brief History of the Big Five I want to first […]

Learn More March 18, 2020

The Bigger World of Behavioral Science

In his Agitator debut our new expert on supporter motivation explains why the time has come for nonprofits to more fully access the psychological insights and tools available to them and maximize their fundraising potential. Traditionally, “motivation” has been seen as an attribute that varied only by amount: folks can be either more or less […]

Learn More March 4, 2020

Has Gregorian Sabotaged Your Supporter Journey?

Yes, Gregorian, as in the 12-month calendar most of civilization has been using since 1582. (Though, it turns out Great Britain and its Empire didn’t convert from the Julian calendar until 1752 by which time they needed to correct for 11 days of discrepancy and so Wednesday, September 2nd, 1752 was followed by Thursday, September […]

Learn More January 29, 2020

Smile! It’ll Raise More Money (But Only If You Do It The Right Way)

It probably intuitively rings true that facial expressions provide visual cues about what a person is feeling. In fact, a lot of work has been done to codify this across cultures. But what about facial expressions – the smile in this case – and what they signal about your motivation? We innately try to discern […]

Learn More January 10, 2020

Learning from Politics: Texting

In the last US election year, we talked about what we can learn from political campaigns in hypertargeting, nudge language, and building the tools you need. Now, we have a lesson we can take from the 2018 cycle about the use of texting. A bit of background – for political campaigns, robocalls are the incumbent […]

Learn More January 8, 2020

The Year In Review – Part 2

Here are three additional concerns/opportunities that we raised in 2019 –topics that also happened to be among the most popular with Agitator readers. If acted upon, each one holds substantial promise for a brighter 2020 provided they’re acted upon. Donor Identity. It won’t surprise frequent Agitator readers that in a study by Donor Graphics for One & […]

Learn More January 6, 2020

The Year in Review: Part 1

Happy New Year! This is the perfect time to invoke the spirit of Janus, the Roman god who looked both forward and backward. Looking at the state of fundraising back in 2019 and forward into 2020 I think three things ae true at the same time. Fundraising is much worse. Fundraising is terrible. Fundraising will […]

Learn More January 1, 2020

Two Low/No Cost Tips to Boost Year-End Revenue

Time’s running out. It’s too late to implement some elaborate year-end strategy. BUT…here are two Agitator tips –one free and one costing no more than $20—that any organization, small or large, can put in place quickly and easily to boost year-end revenue. Tip #1: Database Address Update. Estimated Potential Benefit: 5%-7% Revenue Boost [Estimated […]

Learn More December 2, 2019

Behavioral Science Tips for #GivingTuesday and Year-End

The other day a Tweet from Aimee Vance (@NPOfriend) caught my eye with the question: End of Year Goal Thermometer on the donation page. Yea? Nay? What say ye? The string of replies were all over the lot: “Depends”….”Hard NAY—unless the volunteers/board helping meet the goal have it as part of their culture already. We […]

Learn More November 15, 2019

Here’s To The Crazy Ones

The Asch conformity experiment is famous enough to have its own Wikipedia page. Students were asked which of three lines matched a fourth line in length. Super simple – less than one percent error rate. Until you put the student with a group of fellow students (actually actors) all saying the wrong answer. Then, 75% […]

Learn More October 21, 2019

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