My thought of the day…
Does math anxiety keep people from giving? Or, does math anxiety hold giving lower than it otherwise could be if we removed math from the equation?
A little while ago, I ran across an article from the June 17, 2013 issue of Chronicle of Philanthropy that described the unwillingness of American’s to push giving beyond 2% of national GDP. This article presented a bleak picture about a ceiling in philanthropy. The author, Suzanne Perry, wonders if there is any chance to “…move the dial significantly…” in terms of influencing more giving as a total percentage of GDP.
Interestingly, I
read another article that same afternoon from “The
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.” The article, “Math anxiety and
its effect on consumer’s preferences for price promotion formats” looks at the
following issue:
This research examines whether preference for certain price presentations observed in past research could be explained by either consumers’ math anxiety or their math abilities. Previous research suggests that math anxiety not only increases tendencies to make computational errors but also influences cognitive abilities to make numerical judgments. In four studies we document an effect of math anxiety whereby price promotions, whose net prices are simply derived, like those in a dollars-off format, were preferred over a competing percentage-off format. We explain this effect in terms of consumers’ inability to expend cognitive resources due to their math anxiety rather than their math ability. We also identify a boundary condition with such effects of math anxiety occurring when price information is presented in a computationally complex manner and when consumers are making important product judgments.
What do “price
presentations” have to do with philanthropy or efforts to increase the
percentage of giving? Well, let’s take a moment and revisit the original Chronicle
article. Under the sub-heading “Failed Efforts,” Perry details the admirable
work of Give Five, an organization with lots of support and funding aimed at
convincing people to give 5% of their gross income to charity. Perry also
writes about the NewTithing Group, “a charity that aimed to get
affluent people to figure out how much they could afford to give by looking at
their total wealth, not just their income.” The
failures of these groups and others were attributed to several issues:
- Giving is a “very personal thing,” and some people didn’t like being told how much they should give.
- That wealthy people give top priority to themselves and their families.
- Fear over the ups and downs of an uncertain economy.
- Tuition and healthcare costs crowding out philanthropy.
No surprises
here, right? As a fundraiser, I hear these objections all the time.
If the Journal
article is right, and there is indeed an “inability to expend cognitive
resources due to their math anxiety…” it makes sense that the Give Five campaign
failed - in part or in whole - because it relied on a percentage-of-income approach. Could
the campaign have communicated a similar message without using a
percentage-format? If so, could it have succeeded? Maybe.
Historical
context is important in this discussion. The Give Five campaign occurred prior
to our ability to use advanced analytics in advertising and communication. We
can now, if we have the investment, slice and dice consumer and donor data to
such a degree that we don’t really have to use percentage formats. We can now,
based on what we know about people’s incomes, suggest a specific dollar amount
and then tie that to a percentage if we want. Through targeted digital and
print (yes, print!) advertising, we can remove the abstract nature of a
percentage of income and tie it to a real figure based on live data.
I think it’s time to revisit the idea of Give Five. But let’s
do it with the kind of donor analytics that could actually help, as Suzanne
Perry wrote, “move the dial.”
