Trust in the Eye of the Beholder?
We do a lot of surveys. Heck, I’ve got an advanced degree in Survey Methodology, whatever the hell that means.
Surveys are ubiquitous it seems, especially in politics and public policy. Your organization might do a survey for constituent understanding or for public release to advocate for this or that cause.
What makes surveys trustworthy to your internal or external consumer? There are a lot of methodology details that might be used as proxy for survey quality. Sample size is a favorite. What about just stating it’s “representative”? Or that the respondents were chosen randomly?
We’d like to think we’re sophisticated consumers judging the quality of the survey on these objective, methodological shorthands.
But how do these methodology details stack up against our human bias? You know, finding surveys untrustworthy if they contradict our existing beliefs?
In a recent experiment testing 48 different survey introductions providing varying amounts of methodological detail ranging from none to lots the researchers found these quality indicators matter very little in our trustworthiness judgment.
Instead, if the survey result matches what I already believe, I trust it, if not, I reject it.
Demoralizing but true.
Having said that, there is a tiny Trust-Bump by having a sample size of 1,000 vs. 100 and by describing it as “representative”.
Kevin
Behavioral Science Q & A
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
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
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
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer