We have discovered what works and engages donors and the facts are surprising.

For decades, nonprofits have been squeezing as much data and facts as possible into brochures, leaflets, and internet sites. The basic drive was to convince donors of the need and urgency. Like drinking from a fire hose, donors were expected to give if nonprofits shared enough critical information.

What Does Research Tell Fundraisers About the Practice of Philanthropy?

With the innovation of fMRI and other similar technological breakthroughs, scientists for more than ten years have been studying why and how we give. Even though scientists still have much to learn on the subject, their findings are starting to unravel the mystery of what makes donors give.

The answer to these fundamental questions was heralded in a Wall Street Journal headline in August 2013. Elizabeth Svoboda announced to the world that the brain is hard-wired for generosity. The article cited the growing evidence that giving is driven by emotions. (1)

As Tom Ahern, noted philanthropy writer, found after examining the research using diagnostic tools, “[O]ur minds have run a lifelong scam.” (2)

Philanthropy is motivated by emotions, not by analysis.

What Works and Why: It’s About Emotion

There are a growing number of studies that support the Wall Street Journal pronouncement that generosity is driven by emotion.

The Food Bank Study

What They Found: W.T.Harbaugh, U. Myer and D.R. Burghart found donations created activity in the ventral striatum which is a region of the brain lit up by stimuli from such other things as arts, an attractive face, or a winning lottery ticket. (3) Essentially, they found that giving is emotion driven.

What They Studied: They gave each individual participant $100 and then suggested he or she may want to support a food bank. When individuals gave to the food bank, they knew they could keep the money for themselves. Despite this fact, a vast percentage of individuals gave to the food bank. The study also showed individuals were more likely to give when the suggested amount was low. Not all of the subjects acted in the same manner when making their decision to keep the money or to give it to the food bank.

Why It Works: What science has boiled it down to is that there is an electrical highway that links to a chemical highway. These highways end up affecting emotion centers of the brain.

The research points to neural signals that come together in a brain area called the medial forebrain pleasure circuit. (4) Linden traced generosity pleasure to the neurons in the brain called the ventral tegmental area (VTA) where electrical impulses race along thin fibers called axons. When they reach the axon terminals, the electrical impulses trigger the release of molecules.

These molecules spread and bind to receptors on target neurons which find their way to the emotion centers such as amygdala and anterior cingulate cortex. It is a vast, complex highway of actions and interactions which will be felt as pleasure by a donor. “[T]he sensory cues and actions that preceded and overlapped with those pleasurable experiences will be remembered and associated with positive feelings.”(5)

Giving is tied to a complex network of electrical and chemical interactions within the brain and it is emotion centered.

The Carnegie Mellon University Rokia Letter Study

Instead of facts being the determining factor for many donors, it turns out that facts and figures are selectively chosen to support the emotional leaning of the individual donor (which often happens unconsciously). What this means for fundraisers is that giving is about the story and the emotions of the cause. Does it mean that donors will respond where emotion is effectively used? If people are very interested in animals, they are likely to be very receptive to emotional cues about causes for pets while possibly less interested in causes regarding healthcare. Where donors are not as interested in a specific cause such as international causes, they will be less likely to respond to emotional communications.

What They Found: Emotions generate the most gift revenue response. Facts and figures with emotions do not create greater results than just emotions. However, facts and figures with emotions will generate higher average gift results than just facts and figures.

What They Studied: Carnegie Mellon University pursued a study in 2004 regarding facts versus emotion. The study participants were given five dollars and the opportunity to donate some of their money to Save the Children. Participants read an emotional letter about an individual named Rokia. These study participants contributed $2.38. The participants who received a letter with only statistics and facts (abstract/analytical letter) gave just $1.14. When a group of participants were given both the emotional and the factual appeals, they gave $1.43.

The study underscores the importance of leading with emotion. After a gift is given, facts and outcomes can be effective to show the donor their decision was the right thing to do. (6)

Emotion letter about Rokia	$2.38 average gift
Emotion and facts letter	$1.43 average gift	40% lower than Emotion
Facts letter	$1.24 average gift	52% lower than Emotion

Why It Works: Giving activates the emotional center of the brain where electrical and chemical responses provide a “giver’s high.” Facts and figures activate the donors’ analytical side of the brain. A number of research studies indicate that when donors are pushed to think in analytical terms, they tend to give less of their resources.

Key points to remember:
• Emotions lead in generosity
• Facts follow
• Know when to use each of these. Facts are less effective where used when asking for a donation but more effective when associated with the impact or outcomes from use of a donation.

Knowing when and how to use emotions and facts requires both art and science.

What We Have Learned From Research

• Generosity is largely a venture of the heart;
• Emotional communications help individuals to care and those feelings prod them to act and support a cause;
• Even the best crafted emotional communication will not connect with every individual. The emotional connection depends on the potential donor’s past experiences and worldview, likes and dislikes, and current situation as to whether she will make a gift. It also may depend upon facts which indicate the outcomes from past giving. This is why some individuals will give while other individuals will not give. This is why some individuals will give generously while others will give a smaller amount; and
• Generosity communication is more complex than we may have originally thought in the past. It is an interplay of emotional cues and communications sprinkled carefully with facts and figures. You will also find that images will have an effect upon giving as well. Therefore, we need to think of emotion in broader terms than just copy and figures. We need to consider images or videos in terms of emotional impact upon donors.

Toolkit Suggestion: Review how you do or do not integrate emotion into your fundraising. Where you have a gap, consider how you can improve.

NOTES
(1) Elizabeth Svoboda, “Hard-wired for Giving: Contrary to Conventional Wisdom that Humans are Essentially Selfish, Scientists are Finding the Brain is Built for Generosity,” The Wall Street Journal, August 31, 2013.
(2) Tom Ahern, Seeing Through a Donor’s Eyes: How to Make a Persuasive Case for Everything from Your Annual Drive to Your Planned Giving Program to your Capital Campaign (Medford, MA: Emerson & Church, 2014), 54.
(3) W.T. Harbaugh, U. Myer, and D.R. Burghart, “Neural Responses to Taxation and Voluntary Giving Reveal Motives for Charitable Donations,” Science, 3016 (2007): 1622-1625.
(4) David G. Linden, The Compass of Pleasure: How Our Brains Make Fatty Foods, Orgasm, Exercise, Marijuana, Generosity, Vodka, Learning and Gambling Feel So Good (New York: Penguin, 20 11), 3.
(5) Linden, 18.
(6) Chip and Dan Heath, Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die. (New York, Random House, 2007), 166-167.