Natural Philanthropy: How the Natural Origins of Donor Motivations Drive Powerful Fundraising

How the natural origins of donor motivations drive

powerful fundraising

Professor Russell James, J.D., Ph.D., CFP®Director of Graduate Studies in Charitable Financial Planning Texas Tech University

Summary of paper available at https://www.nature.com/articles/palcomms201750

https://www.nature.com/articles/palcomms201750

1. The natural philanthropy framework

2. Five principles of fundraising practice

r=1/2

r=0

r=1/6

r=1/3

acquiring

sharing

Giving and sharing is not a modern invention of the industrialized world.

It is a natural behavior that can aid genetic success – not just within the family, but for many others.

The natural philanthropy framework

Giving depends upon the tangibility

of a gift’s impact on altruism (direct or code), reciprocity

(transactional or friendship), and

possessions relative to its alternatives

r=1/2

r=0

r=1/6

r=1/3

1. Direct AltruismProviding resources to similar others can take place

through direct altruistic transfers

Transfers will be favored by selection when

where c is the cost to the donor, b is the benefit to the recipient, and r is

the genetic similarity between

the donor and recipient

rb–c > 0 Giving depends

upon the tangibility of a gift’s impact on

altruism(direct or

code), reciprocity

(transactional or friendship),

and possessions

relative to its alternatives

Hamilton, W. D. (1964) The GeneticalEvolution of Social Behaviour. II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7 (1): 17-52.

Transfers are preferred when the recipient is

relatively needy, as this indicates high recipient

benefit, b, relative to donor cost, c

rb–c > 0 Giving depends

upon the tangibility of a gift’s impact on

altruism(direct or

code), reciprocity


and possessions


Gene similarity is not directly observable. However, several

observable factors do correlate with genetic similarity – such as

similarity in location, behavior, personality,

and physical appearance – and these,

in turn, predict cooperation and

altruistic sharing.

Giving depends upon the tangibility of a gift’s impact on

altruism(direct or

code), reciprocity


and possessions


Rushton, J. P. 1989. “Genetic Similarity, Human Altruism, and Group Selection.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12: 503-559. rb–c > 0

r=1/2

r=0

r=1/6

r=1/3

2. Code Altruism

Promoting a code to share as need arises

Providing resources to similar others can take place indirectly, through support of a code of behavior

benefitting one’s group

An individual may benefit others by

support of a beneficial code of behavior

through rewards and punishments

Gintis, H. 2003. “The Hitchhiker's Guide to Altruism: Gene-Culture Coevolution, and The Internalization of Norms.” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 220 (4): 407-418. Gintis, H. (2000) Strong Reciprocity and Human Sociality. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 206 (2): 169-179.


altruism(direct or

code), reciprocity


and possessions


And personally internalizing or causing others to internalize a code (i.e., follow the code in the

absence of punishment or reward)


altruism(direct or

code), reciprocity


and possessions


r=1/2

r=0

r=1/6

r=1/3

Acquiring Resourcescan take place directly, as in hunting or gathering or

indirectly, through reciprocity

r=1/2

r=0

r=1/6

r=1/3

3. Transactional ReciprocityThe conditional transfer of resources

Direct altruism can generate current transactional reciprocity from the recipient


of a gift’s impact on altruism

(direct or code), reciprocity

(transactionalor friendship),

and possessions relative to its alternatives

or creation of a shared or public good benefitting the donor






or from others e.g., tax benefits






or motivating others to give towards a shared or public good benefiting the donor






Acts of direct or code altruism can also signal

to observers that the donor is a high quality

partner for future transactional reciprocity

relationships by signaling wealth and

shared support of beneficiaries and

transactionally important behavioral codes






r=1/2

r=0

r=1/6

r=1/3

4. Friendship (Family) ReciprocityThe, to some extent, unconditional transfer of resources

As need arises

As need arises

In time of need, a friend will

help unconditionally, i.e., even if help is not justified by potential transactional

exchange benefits



(direct or code),

reciprocity(transactional or

friendship), and possessions


Friendship reciprocity uniquely includes an element of insurance



(direct or code),




In a natural context, receiving the benefits of such mutual insurance in a crisis can be

extraordinarily important to survival



(direct or code),




“For hunter-gatherers, illness, injury, bad luck in foraging, or the inability to resist an attack by social antagonists would all have been frequent reversals of fortune with a major selective

impact. The ability to attract assistance during such threatening reversals in welfare, where the absence of help might be deadly” was critical to survival.

Tooby, J., and L. Cosmides. 1996. “Friendship and the Banker's Paradox: Other Pathways to The Evolution of Adaptations for Altruism.” Proceedings of the British Academy, 88: p.132.



(direct or code),




Although receiving the benefits of friendship reciprocity was critical, fulfilling the obligations

of this mutual insurance was costlyGiving depends upon the tangibility


(direct or code),




Projecting oneself (and judging a partner) as a valuable friend – not a “fair weather” friend – in advance of a crisis was animportant and difficult survival task



(direct or code),




Altruism enhancing attractiveness as a

transactional partner (displaying valuable resources, similarity, or shared support of

others) also enhances attractiveness as a friendship partner



(direct or code),




But, this must be combined with the friend’s willingness to help in a crisis beyond what is

transactionally justified Giving depends upon the tangibility


(direct or code),




A current or potential friend could signal this willingness in advance in a variety of ways



(direct or code),




such as by taking transactionally unjustified actions to please the friend (e.g., unconditional

gifts)Giving depends upon the tangibility


(direct or code),




especially those evidencing an

emotional connection (e.g., gifts reflecting a deep understanding of

the friend’s preferences)



(direct or code),




or even by supporting a

code that mandates

fulfilling such insurance

obligations



(direct or code),




Conversely, signaling transactional conditionality telegraphs the absence of

friendship insurance Giving depends upon the tangibility


(direct or code),




e.g., giving with expectation of specific exchange or responding to a gift with transactional accounting and reciprocity



(direct or code),




r=1/2

r=0

r=1/6

r=1/3

Philanthropy can involve

(1) Direct altruism

(2) Code altruism

(3) Transactional reciprocity

(4) Friendship reciprocity

As need arises

As need arises

Transactional Reciprocity (conditional exchange)

Friendship Reciprocity (to some degree unconditional exchange)

1. Current Relationships

2. Future Relationships

Current Relationships

Future Relationships

(A)Direct

Altruism(Direct transfer

benefitting others)

Generates benefits from recipient or observers or improves shared good or environment

Producer: Displays wealth or valuable skillsReceiver: Displays shared support of beneficiaries

[2A]; Signals friendship insurance reliability if heroic or made to please friend

[2A]; Signals potential friendship insurance reliability by heroism or treatment of current friends

(B)Code

Altruism (Support of

behavioral code benefitting group

members)

Generates benefits or avoids punishment from code-enforcing observers or improves shared environment

Producer: Code dictates desirable transactional behavior (e.g., fairness)Receiver: Displays shared code support

[2B]; Signals friendship insurance reliability if code dictates reliability

[2B]; Signals potential friendship insurance reliability if code dictates reliability

It’s complicated.Acts of altruism can support reciprocity.


of a gift’s impact

on altruism(direct or code),

reciprocity(transactional or friendship), and


When opportunities for reciprocity (transactional or friendship) or altruism (direct or code) arise in a form more relevant to the natural environments in which these behaviors were originally selected, they will be more likely to trigger giving

In other words, opportunities presented

in a more

tangible, naturalistic, visualizable form will be more likely

to trigger giving

such as in a story or narrative

framework

Schank, Roger C., and R. P. Abelson. 1995. “Knowledge and Memory: The Real Story.” In: Robert S. Wyer, Jr (ed) Knowledge and Memory: The Real Story. Hillsdale, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1-85.

Giving depends upon the

tangibilityof a gift’s impact on

altruism (direct or code),

reciprocity (transactional or friendship),

and possessions


Jenni, K., and G. Loewenstein. 1997. “Explaining the Identifiable Victim Effect.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14 (3): 235-257.

appeals for a specific needy person generate more emotion and donations than those describing the needs of a large group





and possessions


In a dictator game, allowing

the donor to view the recipient or even revealing the recipient’s family name

increases donations

Smith, R. W., D. Faro, and K. A. Burson. 2013. “More for The Many: The Influence of Entitativity on Charitable Giving.” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (5): 961-976.

Charness, G., and U. Gneezy. 2008. “What's in A Name? Anonymity and Social Distance in Dictator and Ultimatum Games.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 68 (1): 29-35.





and possessions


Similarly, increased giving when allowing gifts to be restricted to

specific purposes occurred even among donors who did not actually restrict their

gifts

Helms, S., B. Scott, and J. Thornton. 2013. “New Experimental Evidence on Charitable Gift Restrictions and Donor Behaviour.” Applied Economics Letters, 20 (17): 1521-1526. Eckel, C. C., D. H. Herberich, and J. Meer. 2016. “A Field Experiment on Directed Giving at a Public University.” Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2016.04.007





and possessions


Reminders of the importance of altruism (direct or code) or reciprocity (transactional or

friendship) also increase tangibilityGiving depends upon the




and possessions


For example, one study found that religious individuals were more likely to respond to appeals for charity than non-religious individuals, but only on days when they visited their place of worship

Malhotra, D. 2010. “‘Sunday Effect’ on Pro-Social Behavior.” Judgment and Decision Making, 5 (2): 138-143.





and possessions


Priming participants with religious words leads to increased generosity in

dictator games

Shariff, A. F., and A. Norenzayan. 2007. “God Is Watching You Priming God Concepts Increases Prosocial Behavior in an Anonymous Economic Game.” Psychological Science, 18 (9): 803-809.





and possessions


Simply reminding people of the concept of love by incidentally displaying the word increases

charitable donations

Guéguen, N., and L. Lamy. 2011. “The Effect of the Word ‘Love’ on Compliance to a Request for Humanitarian Aid: An Evaluation in A Field Setting.” Social Influence, 6 (4): 249-258.





and possessions


Possession





possessionsrelative to its alternatives

Any maximizing decision must weigh the initial cost against the anticipated outcomes from

altruism or reciprocityGiving depends upon the tangibility




possessionsrelative to its alternatives

Alternatives





possessions

relative to its

alternatives

A potential donor may agree to make a gift, refuse to make a gift,

or avoid the giving decisionGiving depends upon the tangibility




possessions

relative to its

alternatives

Avoiding the giving decision may be attractive; like a refusal, it involves no initial cost but may have fewer negative consequences than a blatant refusal





possessions

relative to its

alternatives

The natural philanthropy framework


of a gift’s impact on altruism (direct or code), reciprocity



1. The natural philanthropy framework

2. Five principles of fundraising practice

Advance the donor

hero story

• A “hero” is a voluntary, sacrificial protector of group members or ideals who merits social approval

• Protecting group members is direct altruism • Protecting ideals is code altruism

Franco, Z. E., Blau, K. and Zimbardo, P. G. (2011). Heroism: A Conceptual Analysis and Differentiation between Heroic Action and Altruism. Review of General Psychology, 15(2): 99.

Giving depends upon the tangibility of a gift’s impact on altruism (direct

or code), reciprocity (transactional or friendship), and

possessions relative to its alternatives.

1. Advance the donor hero story.

2. Make the charity like family.

3. Provide compatiblepublicity and benefits.

4. Minimize perceived loss.

5. Manage decision avoidance.

“Advancing” rather than

“creating” the donor hero story

means that the gift should fit within

the donor’s existing life

narrative









“Social heroism”, as compared with the heroism of perilous physical acts, is “typically less dramatic” and “unfolds over a much longer period of time”








5. Manage decision avoidance. Franco, Z. E., Blau, K. and Zimbardo, P. G. (2011). Heroism: A Conceptual Analysis and

Differentiation between Heroic Action and Altruism. Review of General Psychology, 15(2): 99, 101.

References to “important in your life” increase interest

Interested Now

40%

30%

12%

Will Never Be

Interested

6%

7%

14%

2014 & 2015 Surveys, 1,822 Respondents

Make a gift to charity in your will to support causes that

have been important in your life

Make a gift to charity in your will

Make a bequest gift to charity









Advance the donor hero “story” rather than the

donor hero “calculation,” reflects the importance of more

tangible forms of framing


tangibility of a gift’s impact on

altruism (direct or code), reciprocity (transactional or friendship), and







Making a small statistical impact on an

overwhelming problem or paying for the necessary

utility bills of the administrative office does

not (even if objective impact is larger)

Helping a specific victim, giving money to drill a needed well, or providing the goal completion gift fits

with a heroic narrative


of a gift’s impact on altruism (direct or

code), reciprocity (transactional or friendship), and







Must merit social approval (even if not

publicized)









5.0%

10.4%

15.4%

Charitable plans among

1,000 testators


1,000 testators


1,000 testators

Many of our customers like to leave money to

charity in their will. Are there any causes you’re

passionate about?

Would you like to leave any money to charity in your will?

No reference to charity

Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team (2013) Applying behavioural insights to charitable giving









Creating a social norm demonstrating social approval is effective

You can support Golomolo by donating 20 Swedish crowns. 73% of Linnaeus University students who were

asked for a contribution have donated 20 Swedish

crowns to Golomolo.

You can support Golomolo by donating 20 Swedish crowns. 73% of University students in

Sweden who were asked for a contribution have

donated 20 Swedish crowns to Golomolo.

You can support Golomolo by donating 20

Swedish crowns.

Agerström, J., Carlsson, R., Nicklasson, L., & Guntell, L. (2016). Using descriptive social norms to increase charitable giving: The power of local norms. Journal of Economic Psychology, 52, 147-153.









Especially a social norm from other group members like the donor

“Sometimes one community needs to come

forward… what all of us can do

together” generates more

gifts for respondents with lower

(real or perceived)

wealth









Hero story may differ by wealth

“Sometimes, one person

needs to come forward…what each

person can do individually”

generates more gifts for those with higher

(real or perceived)

wealthWhillans, A. V., Caruso, E. M., & Dunn, E. W.

(2017). Both selfishness and selflessness start with the self: How wealth shapes responses

to charitable appeals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 242-250.

Are the donors just an ATM for

the heroic administrators?

Are the administrators

agents employed to execute the

donor’s heroic plans?









Who is the hero?

Donors are more likely to give, and

give larger amounts, towards a fixed cost project if their particular gift is made at or near

the fundraising goal completion

even when, in the absence of their

gift, someone else would have made

the goal completion gift

Cryder, C. E., G. Loewenstein, and H. Seltman. 2013. “Goal Gradient in Helping Behavior.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49 (6): 1078-1083. Klinowski, D., N. Argo, and T. Krishnamurti. 2015. “The Completion Effect in Charitable Crowdfunding.” http://pitt.edu/~djk59/completion_kak.pdf


of a gift’s impact on altruism (director code), reciprocity








Another study found that people were willing to donate

MORE when informed that making the donation would require substantial

pain or effort such as running five miles or

enduring a painful cold-pressor task

Olivola, C. Y., and E. Shafir. 2013. “The Martyrdom Effect: When Pain and Effort Increase Prosocial Contributions.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26 (1): 91-105.



code), reciprocity(transactional or

friendship), and possessions relative to its alternatives.






Charitable fundraising requiring fasting, plunging into cold water, or walking on burning

coals may reflect an interest in heroic giving










Examples:

• Expressing gratitude in a way that confirms the heroic nature of the gift

• Sharing heroically-framed stories of similar others who have made gifts

• Constructing giving opportunities that allow demonstrations of sacrificial support in a crisis









Make the charity like family

Philanthropy uses family bonding mechanisms

• Charitable giving is rewarding (like receiving money)

• But uniquely involves oxytocin-rich social attachment brain regions (used in maternal and romantic love)

“donating to societal causes recruited two types of reward systems: the VTA–striatum mesolimbic network, which also was involved in pure monetary rewards, and the subgenualarea, which was specific for donations and plays key roles in social attachment and affiliative reward mechanisms in humans and other animals.” Moll, et al (2006) PNAS 103(42), p. 156234.










Increasing neuropeptide “oxytocin” – a family bonding hormone –increases giving

71Zak, P. J., Stanton, A. A., & Ahmadi, S. (2007). Oxytocin increases generosity in humans. PLoS ONE, 11, e1128

Philanthropy uses family bonding mechanismsGiving depends upon the tangibility









Human touch, when followed by a small gift, elevated oxytocin levels AND subsequent charitable giving

72

Morhenn, V. B., Park, J. W., Piper, E., Zak, P. J. (2008). Monetary sacrifice among strangers is mediated by endogenous oxytocin release after physical contact. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 375-383.

Philanthropy uses family bonding mechanismsGiving depends upon the tangibility









Do you call?

Do you write?

Do you visit?





Build family-social relationships, not market-contract relationships






You don’t pay your grandmother the cash value of a holiday meal or leave a tip for a spouse. Market-exchange behavior telegraphsthe absence of friendship insurance.





Build family-social relationships, not market-contract relationships






Market Realm

(exchange)I engage in conditionaltransactions

by formal contract

Social Realm(identity)

I give unconditionalhelp because

of relationship

Use family

language

Stories and

simple words

Avoid market

language

Formal, legal, or contract

terms

Would you say it in a normal conversation with your grandmother?










Emphasize unconditional social support in a time of need, e.g., visiting a donor in the hospital










Providing an unconditional gift or experience evidencing a deep understanding and concern

for the donor’s preferences










The relevance of friendship reciprocity makes it natural to expect that major gifts fundraisers will tend to excel at friendship-related skills such as

emotional intelligence ormemory for

personal details

Pudelek, J. 2014. “Eleven Characteristics of Successful Fundraisers Revealed at IoFNational Convention.” July 10. http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/fundraising/news/content/17819/eleven_characteristics_of_successful_fundraisers_revealed_at_iof_national_convention










CASE suggests donor cultivation of 1.5 to 3 years before making a major donor ask. This

timing is more in line with friendship relationships rather than transactional

relationships.

CASE (Council for Advancement and Support of Education). 2013. “Fundraising Fundamentals.” http://www.case.org/Publications_and_Products/Fundraising_Fundamentals_Intro/Fundraising_Fundamentals_section_7/Fundraising_Fundamentals_section_73.html










However, given the

relatively brief tenure of most fundraisers, it is important

that the connection be

built to the organization

itself










Additionally, the charity can become like family by encouraging social interaction and mutual

support amongst donors, thus building a community analogous to an extended family















Hansmann, H. (1987) Economic Theories of Nonprofit Organization. The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook, 1, 27-42. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.





Conversely, if the university violates friendship expectations, such as by refusing to admit the

donor’s child, donations often cease






Meer, J. and Rosen, H.S. (2009) Altruism and the Child Cycle of Alumni Donations. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 1(1): 258-286.





Provide compatiblepublicity and benefits

Increasing the public

visibility of a gift usually increases

giving behavior

Andreoni, J., and R. Petrie. 2004. “Public Goods Experiments Without Confidentiality: A Glimpse into Fund-Raising.” Journal of Public Economics, 88 (7): 1605-1623.










This is also true of reminders that increase only the salience or tangibility of observation

without actually changing the objective level of observation, such as through printed eye spots

Krupka, E. L., and R. T. Croson. 2016. “The Differential Impact of Social Norms Cues on Charitable Contributions.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 128: 149-158.










Office beverages available with payment on an “honor” system.

Picture above payment instructions rotated weekly.

Payments were higher when picture of eyes was posted.





M. Bateson, D. Nettle & G. Roberts (2006). Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world setting. Biology Letters 2, 412–414.






Sharing55%

Not45%

Sharing88%

Not12%

K. J. Haley (UCLA), D.M.T. Fessler (UCLA). 2005. Nobody’s watching? Subtle cues affect generosity in an anonymous economic game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 245–256





Do you want to share any your payment with

another (anonymous) participant?






Providing a reciprocal

economic benefit to either the donor

(rebate) or recipient (match) increases giving

Eckel, C. C., and P. J. Grossman. 2008. “Subsidizing Charitable Contributions: A Natural Field Experiment Comparing Matching and Rebate Subsidies.” Experimental Economics, 11 (3): 234-252. Huck, S., and I. Rasul. 2010. “Transactions Costs in Charitable Giving: Evidence from Two Field Experiments.” The BE Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, 10 (1).


of a gift’s impact on altruism (direct or code), reciprocity(transactional or







Even without a precise matching mechanism, donors give more when their gift could generate

giving by others such as when placed in a “leadership” position of publicly giving prior to

(rather than after) other donors’ decisions Reinstein, D., and G. Riener. 2012. “Reputation and Influence in Charitable Giving: An experiment.” Theory and Decision, 72 (2): 221-243.


of a gift’s impact on altruism (direct or code), reciprocity(transactional or







If benefits or publicity reduce

gift impact (due to marginal cost to the organization) or social approval (highlighting self-interest rather than purely pro-social

motives), they may conflict with advancing the

donor hero story










Similarly, if benefits emphasize a purely

conditional market/exchange

relationship with the charity, they may conflict with the

promotion of unconditional

friendship/family relationship










Shared benefits are compatible

Improving a shared environment (e.g., “give because eliminating homelessness makes your community a better place to live”) or shared good (e.g., “give because we can all use the new church building”)










Low marginal cost benefits are compatible

An invitation to an attractive public event or purchase of a donated item at an auction appears not to reduce impact from individual gift, where high marginal cost benefits do










Unconditional or low marginal cost benefits work well (don’t reduce marginal “net gift”)

Falk, A., (2003) Charitable Giving as a Gift Exchange. Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich. http://www.econ.uzh.ch/static/wp_iew/iewwp168.pdf

1. Initial gifts from the charity tend to increase subsequent giving

2. Charity raffle sales fell when a fixed dollar prize (no marginal cost) was replaced with a similar variable dollar prize adding 50% of all ticket sales to the prize





Alpizar, F., Carlsson, F. and Johansson-Stenman, O., (2008) Anonymity, Reciprocity, and Conformity: Evidence from Voluntary Contributions to a National Park in Costa Rica. Journal of Public Economics, 92(5), pp.1047-1060.Dale, D.J., (2004) Charitable Lottery Structure and Fund Raising: Theory and Evidence. Experimental Economics, 7(3): 217-234.






Benefits from other donors are compatible

Developing donor communities – e.g., through boards, advisory groups, and donor social events – where important future transactional relationships are likely to emerge










Publicity

• Requesting or even desiring publicity appears self-interested and anti-heroic

• Publicize gifts automatically (“opt out”)

• Re-framing publicity as a means to influence others to give (a second, sacrificial gift by allowing “undesired” publicity to spur additional gifts)










Minimize perceived loss

Framing the initial cost of the gift can reduce the perception of negative financial impact


of a gift’s impact on altruism (direct or code), reciprocity (transactional or friendship), and possessions

relative to its alternatives.






Asking for the same gift from assets (where it constitutes a tiny share) rather than from income (where it constitutes a much larger share) may reduce the relative perception of financial loss









Asking for a gift in conjunction with a

windfall, the sale of an appreciated asset,

or an anticipated raise allows for framing as

sharing a financial gain rather than experiencing a financial loss








5. Manage decision avoidance. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D., (1991) Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-

Dependent Model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106 (4): 1039-1061.

Other examples include asking

for a future commitment, rather than an

immediate payment, or breaking a larger gift

amount into a smaller daily

equivalent (“for the price of a

cup of coffee a day”)









Experimentally inducing a feeling of financial scarcity, such as by

having participants report their savings on a

$0-$50,000 scale as compared with a $0-$500 scale, reduces charitable

giving

Herzenstein, M., and D. Small. 2012. “Donating in Recessionary Times: Resource Scarcity, Social Distance, and Charitable Giving.” NA-Advances in Consumer Research, 40: 13-17


of a gift’s impact on altruism (direct or code), reciprocity (transactional or friendship), and







People are less likely to donate from their payments in experiments when the money is first given to them in cash, rather than only

shown on a computer screen

Reinstein, D., and G. Riener. 2012. “Decomposing Desert and Tangibility Effects in a Charitable Giving Experiment.” Experimental Economics, 15 (1): 229-240.









or when the money is earned by effort, rather

than given as an unexpected windfall

Reinstein, D., and G. Riener. 2012. “Decomposing Desert and Tangibility Effects in a Charitable Giving Experiment.” Experimental Economics, 15 (1): 229-240.









Manage decision avoidance

In practice, alumni whose names

appear earlier in the alphabet are more likely to be

called with a phone solicitation and,

consequently, are more likely to

make gifts to the university

Meer, J., and H. S. Rosen. 2011. “The ABCs of Charitable Solicitation.” Journal of Public Economics, 95 (5): 363-371.

Giving depends upon the tangibility of a gift’s impact on altruism (direct or code), reciprocity (transactional or friendship), and







Increasing the number of options will tend to increase inaction even when all options are

desirable

One experiment found that as the number of available

volunteering options considered increased, so too did the tendency to postpone committing to any volunteering action

Botti, S. and Iyengar, S.S., (2006) The Dark Side of Choice: When Choice Impairs Social Welfare. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 25 (1): 24-38.

Carroll, L., (2014) The Effect of Choice Set Size and Other Choice Architectures on Decisions to Volunteer. Dissertation Thesis. Plymouth University, UK. Available at https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/handle/10026.1/3003








Phrasing to make agreement less threatening

• Would you considerjoining these others with a gift of $10,000 to help fund this project?

• If you happened to sign a new will in the next six months, would you consider including a gift to support a cause that has been important in your life?









However, avoidance of the donation decision

can also serve as a barrier to beginning any

interactions with the charity









When given the opportunity, a

substantial share of people who would have

given if asked took efforts or even incurred a financial penalty to avoid being asked,

confirming the preference of many for avoidance rather than agreement or refusal

DellaVigna, S., J. A. List, and U. Malmendier. 2009. Testing for Altruism and Social Pressure in Charitable Giving. Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research. (No. w15629) ; Dana, J., D. M. Cain, and R. M. Dawes. 2006. “What You Don’t Know Won’t Hurt Me: Costly (But Quiet) Exit in Dictator Games.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100 (2): 193-201.








Relieving the prospect’s concern about being asked for money might allow for

the development of relationships with the

organization (or affinity for the cause) that, ultimately, could increase interest in

making a gift









Thus, effective management of

decision avoidance may require both

complete abstinence from

donation requests









and the absolute necessity of donation requests, depending upon the timing and

stage of the relationship with the

prospective donor

Fundraisers may fail because they

won’t ask [All listen, no ask]









Fundraisers may fail because they ask without personal information or

relationship [All ask, no listen]

a.k.a., transactional hard sell

How the natural origins of donor motivations drive

powerful fundraising

Professor Russell James, J.D., Ph.D., CFP®Director of Graduate Studies in Charitable Financial Planning Texas Tech University

Natural Philanthropy: How the Natural Origins of Donor Motivations Drive Powerful Fundraising

Government & Nonprofit

Transcript of Natural Philanthropy: How the Natural Origins of Donor Motivations Drive Powerful Fundraising