Participation Trophy

Based on research by Vikas Mittal, Karen P. Winterich and Karl Acquino.

• Nonprofit managers often think donor recognition increases charitable giving, but in reality recognition boosts giving only for certain individuals.
• How individuals score on two key dimensions of a moral identity test explains why promising recognition of donations changes giving behavior of some donors but not others.
• It’s not difficult for smart, savvy nonprofit managers to assess the moral identities within a particular donor population. Doing so could result in more effective marketing strategies.

Personal giving dwarfs corporate giving in the U.S., where individuals account for 70 percent of total charitable donations each year. It’s not surprising, therefore, that nonprofits provide ample public and private acknowledgement of the generosity shown by donors. Managers think that promising recognition for donors increases personal giving, but is this belief accurate?

Not always, according to findings presented in an article by Rice Business faculty member Vikas Mittal, J. Hugh Liedtke Professor of Marketing, and co-authors Karen P. Winterich of Smeal College of Business and Karl Acquino of UBC Saunder Business School. Findings from three studies aimed at exploring whether donor recognition is effective and, if so, under what conditions, suggest that recognition works, but only with certain types of donors: those who score highly on one dimension of moral identity while also scoring low on another. So, what constitutes a moral identity?

In a nutshell, each of us has a moral identity comprised of certain moral traits, goals and behaviors that has both a private and a public dimension. Each dimension has a unique influence on our charitable giving. The private dimension, referred to as internalization, accounts for our desire to act in a manner that is consistent with how we view ourselves as a moral being. A person with a high level of moral identity internalization gives to a charity because the action itself strengthens their self-concept as a moral person. At heart, this type of person doesn’t give based on expectations of recognition. The act of giving itself provides self-reinforcement of their strongly internalized moral identity.

The public dimension of moral identity, referred to as symbolization, accounts for our desire to act in a manner that effectively expresses our moral character to others. A person with a high level of moral identity symbolization gives to a charity with the expectation that a favorable reaction from others will reinforce their self-concept as a moral person. Essentially, this type of person gives to a charity because they expect to get recognition for their donation. The expectation of recognition, in turn, provides social reinforcement and self-verification of their moral identity.

Mittal and his co-authors were able to get almost 900 working adults, ages 18 to 85, to participate in their studies. Participants initially responded to a few survey items in order to score themselves on the two dimensions of moral identity. Next, they were placed in an experimental scenario where they were given the opportunity to make a future donation of time or money to a particular nonprofit. Randomly, some were told to expect any future donation to receive recognition, while others were not promised any recognition. Participants in each scenario were asked to give money or time, and donors received recognition that was either public (e.g. listing of donor names on the charity’s website) or private (personal thank you cards from the charity).

Findings across the three studies are clear and consistent. The promise of recognition does not always increase charitable giving. Expected recognition has no significant effect on those with high levels of moral identity internalization, but it significantly increases giving for individuals with both a high level of moral identity symbolization and a low level of moral identity internalization.

For savvy nonprofit managers, it’s not so hard to tap into moral identities across a population of donors. They only have to ask a few questions, and from the answers they will know whether to expect promises of donor recognition to pay off. In fact, they can augment this strategy by eliciting recognition preferences directly from their donor pool by providing an opt-in or opt-out feature related to their desires to receive various forms of acknowledgement.

Finally, they can temporarily activate moral identity using particular types of donation appeals or ads. If fundraising appeals include promises of recognition, then nonprofits should target such appeals — and the investment of time and money — at the donors most likely to respond: those with high levels for moral identity symbolization and low levels of moral identity internalization. Nonprofits could get even more bang for their buck with this group if they were to provide recognition via cost-efficient social media channels such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.

Some have a clear sense of their moral selves and don’t give in order to receive, but for others the promise of donor recognition provides just the right incentive to give. So, when it comes to ramping up charitable donations, is it better to for nonprofits to give recognition in order to receive future gifts? It depends, and now you know on what.

Vikas Mittal is the J. Hugh Liedtke Professor of Management in Marketing at Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University. 

To learn more, please see: Winterich, K. P., Mittal, V., & Acquino, K. (2013). When does recognition increase charitable behavior? Toward a moral identity-based model. Journal of Marketing, 77(3), 121-134.