Universal truths are universally wrong.

This is never more true than when talking about ‘nudges’ from the world of behavioral economics. As the only behavioral science agency in fundraising and with an entire team of social scientists, some of whom are behavioral economists, we are huge advocates of the field and discipline.

But… behavioral economics is only a subset of behavioral science.  The larger discipline, in our view, requires expertise in psychology, linguistics, data analysis and research.  In turn, each requires vertical, deep subject matter expertise.

And all this expertise bundled together conveys one really important universal truth that is universally correct:  human beings are messy and complicated and so is their behavior.

Reducing success and human understanding down to a single “nudge” or even a barn full of nudges is ridiculous.  This post shares a cool test that has ready-made, practical application.

However, this post is also an admonition to think about donor understanding as a never-ending, continuous improvement journey.  Fundraising done well is about decoding humans and if an outside agency is to warrant getting paid in the hard-earned currency of your donors’ dollars, you should require them to really raise the collective bar on your decoding journey.  On to the experiment…

Identifiable Victim

One of the better known behavioral science principles is called the “Identifiable Victim Effect”.  We’ve written about it here, but it’s probably best summed up by Mother Theresa who deserves at least soft credit for having identified it when she said, “if I look at the mass, I will never act, if I look at the one, I will”.

As it turns out the single story doesn’t always trump statistics conveying size or scope of the problem and level of need.  It’s conditional.  Specifically, the story or anecdote of the one is best at driving giving intention and response when it’s matched with a positively framed message.  However, if you are using a statistic, it works best if you’re also using a negatively framed message.

A positive frame means talking about the positive outcomes if a donor gives– e.g. lives will be saved/improved/better outcomes.  A negative frame puts the focus on lives lost/hurt/bad outcomes if they don’t.

But, what is more important than story vs. stat or positive vs. negative frame in increasing intent and motivation to give?  This is what the academics call “goal attainment” and what a normal person would call, “make me feel like my $20 won’t be wasted”.

The Experiment

To answer that question researchers conducted an experiment that included messaging about the number of supporters as a indicator of legitimacy and a proxy for charity quality as well as stating that $X amount can achieve Y benefit.  In this case it was a health charity where $50 allowed this charity to detect, treat and rehabilitate one person.

In multivariate analysis the ‘goal attainment’ messaging was far more important in explaining increased motivation to give than the message (stat or story) or framing (positive or negative).  The behavioral scientists at DonorVoice would say this “goal attainment” messaging works because it delivers on one of our three, core psychological needs underpinning high quality motivation – the need for competence, to feel like you are making a smart, good choice.

The summary takeaways are;

1. If telling a story then use a positive frame for what the donation will accomplish – lives saved, not lost.
2. If using statistics then use a negative frame. (There are other reasons why we’d skew heavily to using a story, but if you must use a stat, at least give it a fighting chance by placing it in a negative frame.)
3. Persuasion messages about your cause can increase the perceived importance of the social problem but that, in and of itself, won’t cause people to give.
4. The real driver of giving is expectation-setting about the donor’s $20 – namely to make it clear, directly and indirectly, that it won’t be wasted.  This is the donor’s benefit from giving – feeling competent.

Not surprising to us is that the donor’s psychological sense of benefit is what really matters in his/her decision making.

Kevin