Introduction: Do We Make Decisions Entirely Rationally?
Many people assume that they make decisions, particularly financial ones, through logical reasoning and careful consideration of the available options. Human decision-making, however, is more complex. Our choices are shaped not only by information, but also by emotions, impressions, previous experiences, the way options are presented, and the environment around us.
The decision to donate is no exception.
A person may be more affected by a story than by a statistic. They may feel more confident about donating when they know that others have supported the cause. They may hesitate when faced with too many choices, or use a suggested donation amount as a reference point rather than deciding entirely from scratch.
This is where Behavioural Science helps us understand how people make decisions. It includes behavioural biases, mental shortcuts, social influence, choice architecture, and the design of the donation experience itself.
This knowledge can help charities and non-profit organisations create clearer campaigns, easier donation experiences, and more effective communication. But it also raises a fundamental ethical question:
Where does legitimate influence end and manipulation begin?
The central principle of this article is:
Manipulation begins when an organisation attempts to push someone towards a decision they would not have made if they had complete information and felt free to choose.
Ethical influence, by contrast, helps donors understand their options, make their own choices, and act on the decision they believe is right for them, without deception, pressure, or exploitation.
With this principle in mind, the main behavioural influences in fundraising can be understood through four key groups.
First: How Do We Understand the Need?
1. The Identifiable Individual Effect: Why Can a Story Be More Powerful Than a Number?
Large numbers can be difficult for people to comprehend.
A statement such as:
“Thousands of people are in need of assistance.”
may communicate the scale of a problem, but it can still feel abstract.
When the story of a particular person facing a clear need is presented, however, the issue can become easier to understand and emotionally closer to the donor.
A story gives the need a human face and context. It can help donors understand both the problem and the difference they may be able to contribute towards.
But this power carries an ethical responsibility.
A beneficiary's story should never be used in a way that violates their privacy or turns their suffering into a fundraising tool. Ethical storytelling should preserve dignity, avoid exaggerating suffering, provide accurate information, and explain both the need and the possible response.
The objective is not to shock the donor, but to help them understand the need.
2. Similarity Bias: Why Do We Respond More Strongly to People Who Seem Like Us?
People often feel closer to those with whom they share something in common, such as location, language, age, profession, interests, or personal experience.
Charities can use this sense of connection to present stories in ways that help audiences understand an issue more personally.
However, there is a difference between using similarity as a bridge towards empathy and creating an implicit message that says:
“Only help people who are like you.”
Humanitarian action should ultimately broaden the circle of empathy, not narrow it.
Second: How Do We Evaluate Our Options?
1. Social Proof: What Does It Mean When Others Have Already Contributed?
When people do not have enough information to evaluate a situation, they may look at the behaviour of others as a signal.
Knowing that other people have already supported an initiative may therefore increase a donor's confidence in the campaign.
But social proof must be genuine and verifiable.
An organisation can display the number of donors, testimonials, or levels of participation when this information is accurate. Inventing numbers, exaggerating participation, or using fabricated testimonials is not behavioural influence; it is deception.
The distinction is straightforward:
Ethical influence uses reality to help people make decisions, while manipulation creates a false reality to push them towards one.
2. Suggested Donation Amounts and Anchoring
When a donation page presents amounts such as:
50 – 100 – 250 – 500
these figures do more than simply provide options. They may also become reference points that donors use when deciding how much to contribute.
This is not inherently unethical.
An organisation can use previous donation data and knowledge of its audience to suggest reasonable amounts that reduce uncertainty. However, donors should always have a clear opportunity to enter an amount that suits them.
The problem begins when the options are designed primarily to push the donor towards a higher amount rather than to help them make an informed choice.
This brings us back to the article's central principle:
Would the donor make the same decision if they fully understood how the options had been designed and felt completely free to change them?
Third: What Encourages People to Act?
1. Urgency: When Is “Donate Now” Justified?
Time-limited situations naturally attract attention and can encourage people to make decisions more quickly.
In humanitarian work, there are genuine situations where time matters: a disaster response, urgent medical treatment, a seasonal intervention, or a genuine funding deadline.
In such circumstances, communicating urgency is legitimate.
Creating a false countdown, repeatedly restarting a timer, or suggesting that an opportunity is about to disappear when it is not, however, creates artificial urgency.
The rule is simple:
If time matters, explain why. If it does not, do not invent a reason for urgency.
2. Loss Aversion
People can respond strongly to the possibility of loss or to the continuation of an existing problem.
A message such as:
“Every day of delay may mean another day a child remains out of education.”
can be powerful when it is accurate and grounded in reality.
But excessive use of fear or guilt can turn communication into psychological pressure.
The donor should feel that they chose to participate, not that they were psychologically punished for choosing not to donate.
3. Donation Matching
Donors may perceive their contribution as more valuable when they know that another organisation or supporter will match or multiply it.
However, the mechanism must be transparent:
- Who is providing the matching funds?
- How much funding is available for matching?
- Is there a maximum limit?
- When does the matching period end?
- How will matched donations be calculated?
The problem is not the incentive itself, but creating the impression that donations will be matched when there is no genuine and clearly explained mechanism behind the claim.
Fourth: What Makes a Decision Easier—or Harder?
1. Reducing Complexity and Friction
Not everyone who leaves a donation page has changed their mind.
A potential donor may believe in the cause but encounter a long form, excessive requests for information, unclear payment options, or a complicated technical process.
Simplifying the donation journey in this situation is not manipulation.
It is removing barriers that prevent people from completing a decision they already wanted to make.
This leads to an important principle:
Ethical behavioural design removes barriers to a decision; it does not remove freedom from the decision.
2. Repetition
A person may see a campaign today and take no action. They may encounter it again later and begin to recognise it. After another interaction, they may decide to read more or make a donation.
Repetition is therefore a natural part of communication.
However, reminders become problematic when they turn into persistent pursuit or ignore a donor's preference not to receive further messages.
The aim should be:
Remind without annoying, and invite without pursuing.
3. Commitment and Gradual Engagement
A relationship with an organisation may begin with a small action:
Following its content, subscribing to updates, attending an event, volunteering, sharing a campaign, or making a small donation.
As trust develops, the relationship may deepen.
But every new step requires new and explicit consent.
A one-off donation does not mean consent to a monthly donation, and providing an email address does not automatically mean agreeing to every form of marketing communication.
Fifth: When Behavioural Design Becomes Manipulation
The most problematic uses of behavioural knowledge occur when the donation experience is designed to exploit a donor's lack of attention rather than help them make an informed decision.
Examples include:
- Preselecting recurring donations without making this clear.
- Hiding the fact that a donation will recur automatically.
- Creating false urgency or fake countdown timers.
- Deliberately making cancellation or withdrawal more difficult.
- Hiding fees or information that could materially affect the decision.
- Using ambiguous consent mechanisms for communications or data use.
These practices are closely related to what are commonly known in digital design as Dark Patterns: interface designs that steer users towards actions they might not choose if the information and options were presented clearly and fairly.
Again, the central principle applies:
Manipulation begins when an organisation attempts to push someone towards a decision they would not have made if they had complete information and felt free to choose.
Sixth: An Ethical Influence Test Before Launching a Campaign
A charity can turn these principles into a practical ethical review test for fundraising campaigns and donation pages.
1. Truth
Is every statement, figure, and claim accurate and capable of being substantiated?
2. Clarity
Does the donor understand what will happen when they make the decision?
3. Freedom
Can the donor choose another amount, decline, or withdraw easily?
4. Dignity
Does the message respect the dignity and privacy of beneficiaries?
5. Transparency
Would we feel comfortable publicly explaining to donors how we designed this message or donation experience?
If the answer to any of these questions is no, there is good reason to review the behavioural technique before using it.
Seventh: Do Not Measure Donations Alone—Measure Trust Too
A campaign based on psychological pressure may succeed in increasing donations in the short term.
But Conversion Rate alone does not tell us whether the strategy has been successful over time.
Organisations should also consider indicators such as:
- Repeat donations.
- Donor Retention.
- Recurring giving.
- Unsubscribe rates.
- Complaints.
- Refund requests, where applicable.
- Donor satisfaction with the experience.
If a campaign increases donations today but weakens donor trust tomorrow, its success needs to be reconsidered.
Manipulation may be capable of producing one donation, but it is unlikely to build a long-term relationship.
Ethical influence builds something more valuable:
Trust.
Conclusion: Influence Is a Responsibility Before It Is a Skill
Behavioural science gives charities and non-profit organisations a deeper understanding of the donor journey: why stories can be powerful, how trust and social proof influence decisions, why the presentation of choices matters, and how a complicated digital experience can prevent someone who genuinely wants to give from completing their donation.
But the more we understand about how people make decisions, the greater our responsibility becomes in how we use that knowledge.
The objective should not be to discover how to make people donate by any means possible, but to help them understand the cause, evaluate their options, and make an informed decision that aligns with their own values.
Responsible behavioural design in fundraising can therefore be summarised in one principle:
Remove barriers to the decision, but never remove freedom from the decision.
A mature organisation is not simply one that knows how to increase donation conversion. It is one that can do so without misleading donors, exploiting beneficiaries, or sacrificing trust for short-term results.
Ultimately, before using a story, a suggested amount, a countdown timer, or any other behavioural technique, one question matters most:
If donors knew everything we know about how this experience was designed, would they still feel that the decision was truly theirs?
If the answer is yes, we are closer to ethical influence.
If the answer is no, we may have crossed the line into manipulation.
