(Photo by iStock/TarikVision)
Social approbation is supposed to encourage charitable giving, by motivating donors and rewarding them for their kindness. But for many people, public recognition is unwelcome and acts as a disincentive. How should charities negotiate the divergent desires of donors for approval?
Etienne Denis and Claude Pecheux, of EDHEC Business School, and Luk Warlop, of BI Norwegian Business School, explored the diverse social dimensions of generosity by examining the propensity to give in the face of public recognition. In a trio of studies, the researchers demonstrated that public recognition influences a person’s decision to donate to a charitable cause depending on their need for social approval (NSA), among other factors.
“If people already have motives to donate—guilt for instance—they will be less inclined to donate to get public recognition,” Denis says. “Overall, I would suggest that public recognition works best when people have no prior motives to donate.”
The researchers’ first study recruited 329 native French speakers via Facebook by asking them to participate in a survey of “physical activity and sports viewing habits.” The researchers offered respondents who completed the survey a €5 ($5.70) reward that they could keep or donate to charity. The survey included questions to assess participants’ NSA using a Likert-type scale comprising five dimensions: “conformity, internal-external control, need for social support, Machiavellianism, and social cost.”
Participants were randomly assigned to one of three recognition conditions for donating: no recognition, a private thank-you email, or a public message of gratitude from the beneficiary organization. In the third condition, participants were not allowed to decline the publicity. If participants chose to donate the five euros they were paid to charity, their largesse was noted through posts thanking them on sports-related Facebook pages that would be visible to their peer group, including personal Facebook friends and others who shared their interest in sports.
The results showed that the prospect of private recognition had no significant effect on the decision to donate. However, the anticipation of public recognition increased the likelihood of donation for those whose NSA ranked higher, but decreased it for those with lower NSA.
The second study tested the impact of making public recognition optional. A similar number of participants (313) were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: no recognition, a set public recognition, or optional public recognition. In the set condition, a thank-you message was automatically posted on Facebook, whereas those in the optional condition could choose to decline the message or opt in. Further, because relatively few chose to donate at all in the first study, participants in this round were told their donation was limited to €2 of their €5 compensation.
The chance of optional public recognition, versus no recognition, increased the likelihood of charitable donations, regardless of individuals’ NSA level. In fact, among those whose NSA was low, simply offering the option boosted their propensity to donate. None of the low-NSA participants actually opted for the public thank-you message.
A third study, of 426 participants, modulated the set-versus-optional nature of the public recognition as well as whether or not the recognition indicated that it had been imposed. Potential witnesses of the donations would then know whether the donor had any choice in being recognized.
Under these circumstances, those with relatively lower NSA were again more likely to donate if they could reject the publicity, and again none of these individuals opted for advertising their generosity. For those with relatively higher NSA, however, the ability to choose public recognition plus the statement that it was imposed on them significantly increased their likelihood of donating.
“People like to appear nice,” says Christine Exley, assistant professor of business administration at Harvard Business School. “If an organization creates a donation opportunity that better enables people to appear nice, more donations are likely to follow. But public recognition of donors may not make people appear nice. Public recognition of donors may instead make them appear like they are attention-seekers. This paper cleverly points out ways to publicly recognize donors while alleviating such concerns.”
Although these studies provide insight into how donors react to publicity about their charitable impulses, the authors caution charities against using the insight strategically. Because automatic public recognition is likely to leave people with low NSA indifferent or disinclined to donating, charities should at least make clear that such recognition was not solicited by the donor.
“Since the variable, willingness to get public recognition/NSA, is not easily noticeable, charities have limited opportunities to segment based on that variable,” Denis says. “Plus, I would not use campaigns based on this on a too regular basis, since it may undermine the strength of the motive over time.”
Etienne Denis, Claude Pecheux, and Luk Warlop, “When Public Recognition Inhibits Prosocial Behavior: The Case of Charitable Giving,” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, forthcoming.
Read more stories by Marilyn Harris.