Written by Could donor behavioural science be the solution to turning intention into action, a persistent problem for charity digital fundraising teams?
According to US-based Charities Aid Foundation, a staggering 51% of charity supporters polled for a study claim that on at least one occasion in 2025 they considered donating but ultimately didn’t.
There are lots of reasons potential donors don’t convert, such as:
- Financial constraints – a key aspect that keeps intent from translating into action, with 42% of people in one survey citing this as the main reason for changing their mind.
- Friction and complexity – complex charity donation forms and jarring online donation systems can frustrate the supporter enough for them to leave the donation page.
- Messaging overkill – Some supporters cite aggressive ‘push’ messaging from charities which might mean well, but has the opposite effect of making them disengage before giving.
- Impact uncertainty – Lack of clarity over what donations are used for, or questions about how effective an organisation is at allocating income from charity donation websites, make some supporters sceptical about donating.
With several reasons not to give, charities are eager to understand the features of online charity platforms that will successfully convert visitors to their website into donors.
Enter behavioural science: the evidence-based study of human behaviour that considers what people actually do, rather than what they think they should do.
The four levers of behavioural science for online fundraising
Behavioural science is being used by more and more charities to understand their supporters and what makes them donate.
When they know someone’s motivations for considering and taking action, organisations can apply insights to their online fundraising approach and help potential donors overcome their barriers to becoming supporters.
While there are many behavioural science levers you can pull to make this happen, goDonate’s two blogs on the subject will focus on four key strategies:
- Social norms
- Anchoring bias
- Cognitive bias
- Cognitive ease
We’d love to know if you recognise some of the techniques we’ll cover – and whether you’ve tried them as part of your digital fundraising efforts.
Social norms and online fundraising
When we find ourselves in a new situation, we tend to look for social cues as guidance for how to behave: what are other people doing as part of a wider ‘social norm’?
By highlighting other donors’ activity in marketing campaigns, you can share these norms with donors, leveraging them to create resonance and build trust.
Showing what other donors are doing can have a big impact.
Giving Tuesday is a great example: the annual event shows how multiple communications promoting a type of ‘for social good’ behaviour can work. If donors see other people giving at a certain time it makes them more likely to give, too.
Meanwhile, a pilot study around legacy giving – run by the Cabinet Office and a partner legal firm – discovered in an A/B test that 43% of participants were more likely to leave a gift in their will when they heard others had done the same, compared to a group who were not given that information.
Anchoring bias – first impressions count
Anchoring bias is a psychological phenomenon where an individual’s actions or decisions are influenced by the first piece of information they receive. It becomes their reference point, or ‘anchor’, shaping their cognitive process.
That means if fundraisers managing online charity platforms change the first thing a potential donor will see on their journey, their thoughts and feelings can be influenced. For example, new potential donors are often unsure how much to donate. Using anchor values you can encourage a more generous donation than they originally intended to make.
In one campaign, UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) tested the principle using various asks. The usual range was £30, £75 and £175.
In the test, these amounts increased to £50, £75 and £150 respectively.
The result? A 50% higher conversion rate and 44% higher average gift.
The key learning is that testing suggested donation amounts is vital if you’re looking for a more effective way to collect donations online.
It’s worth noting that behavioural science proves that people are programmed to plump for a ‘middle option’ between two extremes. Tweaking donation asks so there’s a smaller gap in value between the lowest and middle value, then a larger gap between the middle and highest amounts, can make a big difference.
Donors who can only afford the lowest amount won’t feel it isn’t worth making a gift and give up; some will even take the ‘small’ step up to the middle amount, which doesn’t seem exorbitantly more. Meanwhile, those intending to give the biggest amount are less likely to drop down to what seems a much lower middle value.
As you can see, small tweaks based on insights from behavioural science make a big difference to a fundraising campaign when you’re working to boost online donations.
In our second blog on behavioural science for charities we’ll consider the concepts of cognitive bias and cognitive ease.
To discuss how goDonate can help you take advantage of behavioural science to boost your online fundraising efforts, contact us.
Frequently Asked Questions
Anchoring bias is a cognitive effect where the first number a donor sees becomes their reference point for how much to give. Charities can use this by testing higher suggested donation amounts, which tends to increase both the average gift size and the overall conversion rate.
Yes. Research on UK donors found that raising the anchor amounts shown on a donation form increased average donations significantly compared to lower anchors, with one study recording a rise from £8.81 to £18.17 per gift — a 106% increase — simply by changing the suggested figures.
Social norms refer to cues about what other people are doing in a similar situation. In fundraising, this means showing potential donors that others have already given — for example, a running donor count or recent gift activity — which builds trust and makes new donors more likely to follow suit.
Common barriers include financial constraints, friction in the donation process (long or confusing forms), overly aggressive fundraising messaging, and uncertainty about how a donation will be used. Addressing these barriers individually tends to improve conversion more than broad messaging changes alone.