Identity Triggers Only Work When They Matter
Teachers were asked by their school district to complete a survey. The experiment was a 2×2 design (one of our faves):
The result? A nothingburger. No difference in survey participation between A-D, randomly assigned groups.
To quote Paul Harvey, “And now for the rest of the story.”
Researchers noticed a difference in survey participation on one of their external, control variables – teacher effectiveness. More effective teachers were more likely to fill out the survey.
This led to a post-hoc analysis that found what we often find; test ideas work differently for different people.
Priming the Identity of the teacher by referencing “teacher” in the email survey invite did work but only for those teachers who are good teachers.
Identities matter when they matter. Calling me a donor or dog lover or conservationist or researcher or father only matters if,
- I am that thing and
- That thing matters to me
A proxy for the latter is the person is good at it.
Kevin
Wondering if you think the label “teacher” mattered and if another term, like “educator” or “mentor” could make a difference. Along those lines, can choosing a label other than “donor” (perhaps leader, partner, concerned friend, etc.) trigger “that thing that matters to me”?
Hi T (guessing it isn’t Mr. T though that would be cool),
It’s unlikely in this instance in that the thing that makes the label matter is being good at the job. For those who are good teachers they’d probably also identify with “educator” and you’d see the same effect. I suppose in a fit of irony there are bad teachers who have a lofty view of themselves as “educators” but don’t identify with the “teacher” label because it diminishes the self-regard they hold.
Having said that, labels can matter. We have done lots of research showing some people think of themselves as “members”, others as “donors” even though they are doing the same act for the same charity. In many cases, those who consider themselves members are more committed and give more. It probably helps to refer to them that way so it reinforces that sense of self. Can you refer to a person who thinks of themselves as a “donor” as member and have it help increase their connection to the brand (Committment) and giving? Maybe but not likely.
There is some testing to show that you should use nouns vs. verbs – thanks for being a donor vs. thanks for donating. The latter feels more transitory, the more more permanent. But, that effect is likely small and not one that creates long-term lift.
The better path is digging deeper on Identity, getting below the superficial labels that describe their connection to your org (e.g. partner, concerned friend) and instead reference who they are independent of your brand. What is it about them that connects them to your mission (conservationist, animal lover, patient, caregiver) vs. your brand (friend, member, donor)?
Hope that helps.
“who they are independent of your brand” is exactly what i was looking for. Thanks.
(Yeah, being Mr. T could be cool, but…)