The prevailing wisdom in fundraising circles is giving is fueled by altruism, a desire to help. But recent research on retributive philanthropy—donating to punish a perceived wrongdoer—turns this assumption on its head. Donors are motivated not just by love but also by anger, moral outrage, and a thirst for justice.

Retribution donations spike when donors perceive an act of volitional wrongdoing. This isn’t just about abstract injustice; it’s about punishing a specific individual or entity responsible for it. Think of the Planned Parenthood donations made in Mike Pence’s name or the Ukrainian charity that inscribed donors’ messages onto artillery shells aimed at Russian troops. This is philanthropy as retribution—weaponized giving.

The Efficacy Factor: Why It Works

Traditional donor psychology research emphasizes donation efficacy—the belief that a gift will make a meaningful impact. The same logic applies here but with a twist: donors aren’t asking, “Will my donation help?” but rather, “Will my donation hurt the wrongdoer?”  Retributive giving is most effective when donors see a clear path to punishment, making efficacy a critical lever for fundraising.

But here’s the crucial nuance: anger alone doesn’t drive behavior—relief from anger does. People don’t donate simply because they are outraged; they donate because they believe their gift will lessen their anger by achieving a sense of justice.  Emotion isn’t the cause of behavior, it’s the goal.

A fundraiser using retribution must recognize that attention-grabbing outrage is just the starting point. The actual conversion happens when the donor sees a path to restoring order and delivering retribution.

This aligns with another critical insight from DonorVoice’s research: altruism and warm glow are fleeting, ephemeral motivators. Donors may give in a moment of emotional intensity, but only intrinsic motivations—those tied to identity—sustain long-term giving. People don’t give just because they feel good; they give because the act reinforces who they are.

It’s not enough to say, “Your donation will help us fight injustice.” You have to show how it will land a blow against those responsible and, critically, how that will bring the donor emotional closure while reinforcing their sense of self.

What This Means for Identity-Driven Fundraising

Fundraising segmentation is broken. Traditional models rely on behavioral data—how much donors gave, how often, and through what channels. But these findings reinforce the case for segmenting by identity and trait. A donor who responds to injustice with altruistic compassion is not the same as one who wants to see justice meted out swiftly and publicly.

This is where psychological profiling using the Big Five trait model comes into play. Donors high in conscientiousness and authoritarianism—those who value order and control—are far more likely to respond to retributive appeals, as they see justice as a matter of restoring balance through decisive action. Meanwhile, those high in agreeableness—who prioritize harmony, compassion, and cooperation—are more inclined toward donation appeals centered on care, preventing harm, and restorative justice.

Consider an example: a group of veterans outraged over budget cuts to VA services. That initial anger gets their attention, but it’s not enough. The next step is segmentation:

• Some veterans—identified through DonorVoice’s trait profiling—lean right of center, scoring high on conscientiousness and loyalty. For them, the retributive message should emphasize restoring order, honoring the military’s legacy, and holding decision-makers accountable.
• Others lean left of center and score high in agreeableness. They will respond better to an appeal framed around compassion for struggling fellow veterans and the need to provide care and prevent harm.

Same issue, same donor pool—but vastly different emotional and identity-based framing. This is where the real work in fundraising happens: tapping into identity first and tailoring the retributive appeal accordingly.

Fundraising is a crowded, increasingly competitive place. Tapping into anger, frustration and general unease seems like a macro shock that isn’t likely to dissipate any time soon.   But, doing it well requires more than fire, brimstone and pitchforks.

Kevin