1. Carrot or Stick. The effect of message tone on donations
Carrot or Stick? The effect of message tone on donations. Student predictions versus real world behaviour.
Introduction:
The University of Plymouth studied whether positive or negative framing raises more money, looking at the effect of both wording and images on donations. They found that “negative framing may work best for donor acquisition, where new donors must be ‘attracted’ to the cause through an emotional punch” and that “ positive framing may work better in donor retention, where fundraisers are trying to build lasting relationships with donors, who are already engaged with their causes” (Smyth and Macquillin, 2018) . Based on this research and our pilot research we wanted to see whether young people could predict, which type of message (positive or negative) the public would respond favourably to and then we could test their predictions in the real world.
Method Part 1:
1. We designed a questionnaire that asked for students to predict whether a positive and negative message would successfully persuade members of the public to donate to Shelter. For this we used the images of the signs shown in Figures 1 and 2.
2. We took an opportunity sample of 59 secondary school students of ages years old.
Method Part 2:
We wanted to test our results to see whether the students predictions were valid in the field in a real life situation.
1. We used the two signs (Figure 1 and 2) outside Starbucks in the centre of York, with a labelled bucket for money, for one hour between 1pm and 2pm on two separate days (Tuesday and Friday).
2. We ensured that we went on two working days at the same time of day and with similar weather conditions to access similar types of people walking past.
3. We tried to control other extraneous variables by: wearing the same clothes, standing in the same place. We also remained positive but passive in both conditions and didn’t interact with the public unless spoken to.
Positive sign
Negative sign
Yes 41 23 No 20 37
Null Hypothesis:
Whether a sign has positive or negative framing has no effect on the number of students who agree that a sign has the ability to successfully persuade members of the public to donate to Shelter.
Results Part 1:
Table 1: showing the number of yes/no answers to the key question ‘Will this sign successfully persuade members of the public to donate to Shelter?’
linked to the positive and negative sign shown in Figures 1 and 2.
Chi-squared with Yates correction is The p-value is Significant at p < 0.01 (99% confidence level).
So we can reject the null hypothesis and say that the majority of secondary school students think a positive message will more successfully persuade members of the public to donate to Shelter, and that the negative sign will not persuade members of the public.
Results Part 2: We found that all donations came from people passing by and that nobody coming and going into the coffee shop showed commented.
Qualitative data analysis summary:
Negative sign:
From the questionnaire the qualitative responses mainly indicated that this sign was too rude and would put the public off donating, for example mentioning ‘guilt-tripping’.
Yet, during our hour in the field, over 20% of people who donated commented on the message of our sign, all in a positive way, for example: one stated that it was ‘very true’ another stated that is was ‘very persuasive’.
Positive sign:
From the questionnaire the qualitative responses mainly indicated that this sign was more friendly and therefore would encourage more members of the public to donate.
The only person who commented on the positive sign enthused ‘a great sign, you should go into marketing.’

2. Carrot or Stick. The effect of message tone on donations
Carrot or Stick? The effect of message tone on donations. Student predictions versus real world behaviour.
Conclusion and Evaluation :
Our study suggests that the message of a sign does influence people’s desire to donate to charity but not in the way that people might think. Our data collected from the questionnaire told us that secondary school students predict that members of the public will be more successfully persuaded to donate to charity by a positive message. However, our data collected in the field suggested that a negative message is more successful in persuading the public to donate and to make supportive comments. This links to previous research where positive and negative tone had different effects depending on the situation, which may make it difficult for students to predict effects of message tone accurately. We cannot be certain that the tone of the message on the sign was the only factor that influenced people’s decision to donate, because other factors such as people’s mood, prior knowledge of the charity, personal experiences etc. could have made them more likely to donate/not donate. A larger sample and data collection that allows the use of inferential statistics would be ideal. We would also like to look into potential sex differences in response to the two signs.
Figure 1: “COME ON! IF YOU’RE ENJOUYING YOUR COFFEE, ENJOY IT MORE BY DONATING TO Shelter  ” POSTIVE SIGN
Figure 2: “COME ON! IF YOU CAN AFFORD TO BUY YOURSELF A COFFE, YOU CAN AFFORD TO DONATE TO Shelter  ” NEGATIVE SIGN
Further Discussion and Implications:
This is useful data in that can be used to inform us on the psychology of charitable giving and work to raise money successfully. Both signs were successful at persuading passers-by but not café customers. We raised £50 for the charity Shelter. Importantly, we collected money at a much faster rate using the negative sign (nearly three times as fast as we raises £32 with the negative sign and £13 with the positive sign within the same time period). As we found that nobody coming in or out of Starbucks donated to us, this is possibly because the signs made them feel targeted and in a vulnerable/judged position. This suggests that the reason so many passers-by donated (without purchasing a coffee) was because it allowed them to feel superior to those that were spending their money on themselves. They perhaps did not feel part of the ‘judged’ group and so were more willing to donate. This would also explain why the negative message was so much more successful. It seems that a sign that places passers-by into a group separate from the ‘selfish coffee drinkers’ (perhaps even if only at that moment in time) persuades them to cement their positive group identity but donating and interacting with positive comments. This key factor would be worth further research.
Reference: Smyth R, Macquillin (2018), Positive and Negative feedback, discussion paper 2, v1.1
Researchers: Anna Keag and Hannah Catchpole