Interview: Trepel on the use of emotion in fundraising
In July I spoke to Chris Trepel about several concepts of behavioural decision theory and how they can help in fundraising. This entry continues the conversation with another useful concept: the “affect heuristic.�
What is the “affect heuristic�?
While we all like to think that we are hard-nosed when it comes to making important decisions, in fact, our emotions can cloud our judgments. The term “affect heuristic� refers to our tendencies to replace data and evidence with our emotional (or affective) reaction to a problem or situation.
Much fundraising attempts to invoke strong emotions. Is there evidence to show that this works? Is it always important to “tug on the heartstrings� and put the prospective donor in an emotional state?
To answer that, let me tell you about two interesting examples of this heuristic.
If you are willing to spend $1,000 to save 10 acres of forest, how much will you spend to save 40 acres? Even if four times as much seems like too much, it’s still probably more than $1,000, right? Well, maybe not. The answer depends on the way the question is asked and how you are feeling when you respond.
When you are in an emotional state you tend to focus attention on whether or not you can have an impact rather than on the absolute size of the impact. The mere presence or absence of impact becomes more important than the numbers that describe the scale of the impact.
The relevance of this notion to fundraising was recently revealed by an experiment that examined people’s willingness to donate to save panda bears. When dots were used to represent the pandas to be saved, people said that they would donate significantly more to save four pandas than one panda ($22.00 vs. $11.67). However, when the pandas were shown as cute panda photos, people said they would donate roughly the same amount to save one panda as they would to save four ($19.49 vs. $18.95). The explanation? When pandas are represented as dots we are inclined to count and, in this mode, it seems obvious to us that the welfare of four pandas is worth more than that of a single panda. When confronted by pictures of pandas, however, we react emotionally and are inclined to simply “help the pandas� independent of the number involved.
How donation options are presented can have a major impact on how people will respond. The data above suggest that the more emotionality you can invoke, the larger the donation you’ll receive, but that simultaneously trying to tie the donation to quantifiable goals may be a waste of time since people will be disinclined to “do the math�. More importantly, though, these data indicate that you should consider how emotional your topic is, and then design your request methodology to fit it.
If your cause is not emotionally charged, is it worthwhile to make your fundraising request in a more quantifiable or numeric manner?
Yes. Donation levels or tiers are probably better suited for less emotional topics, while requests for specific amounts are better suited to emotional topics. The hardest part of applying this lesson will likely be the need to see things through the eyes of your donors. For example, while you may be personally moved to tears over the plight of a building, people in general are more likely to react strongly to the plight of small, furry, woodland creatures.
Using these examples, if you solicit for a building restoration you may want to equate each square foot of “saved building� to a dollar amount and then ask how many square feet a potential donor would like to save (perhaps bricks could be used instead of dots). For rabbits and moose, however, it may be more appropriate to ask for a flat amount (and remember to use the cutest moose picture you can find).
Let’s talk about the next example. Many fundraising pieces use two common emotions – fear and anger – to try to motivate people to give. Some worry that being too negative ultimately turns prospective donors off. Can you comment on this?
Although it has been known for some time that being in a “good� or “bad� mood can greatly affect our perceptions, work in the last five years has demonstrated that fearful people tend to be pessimistic about the future, while angry and happy people both tend to be optimistic. Fear and anger will affect people’s behaviour in predictable ways.
Specifically, fearful people will generally make risk-averse choices while angry people tend to make risk-seeking choices. That is, angry people are more interested in the potential outcome than the expected outcome, and so are willing to gamble thinking that they can “hit the jackpot�. By contrast, fearful people are more likely to avoid gambles and will seek to minimize the risk of losses when making choices, even if it means forgoing the possibility of gains.
How can we take advantage of these optimistic and pessimistic outlooks?
Many non-profits, for example environmental charities, have established funding bases. When addressing your current donors it may be influential to encourage people to consider their fears – fear that the planet is being poisoned, that our kids won’t be able to see certain animals or visit certain places. Based on the research, this fear will tend to make people risk averse and will likely motivate them to continue to do what they’ve been doing, namely, donating to their favourite environmental charity.
By contrast, consider a prospective supporter. In this case you are seeking to change their behaviour, so consider using images and text that will invoke anger. Anger will inspire them to take risks and make changes and may be just the ticket to get someone to make their first gift to a new cause. Make sure you emphasize the additional benefits your organization will bring to bear, even if you have to acknowledge that these benefits are not guaranteed. Angry people are primed to gamble, after all.
That’s very helpful. Thanks Chris!
Related Posts: