give_blood_bandage_525

Threat of death gets more blood donors

U. VIRGINIA / NORTHWESTERN (US) — To motivate people to give blood, asking them to “prevent a death” works much better than “save a life,” new research shows.

For the study published in PLoS One, researchers collaborated with the American Red Cross to assess the effects of changing the urgency and messaging of a call for blood donations.

They found that among the student population of Northwestern University, this shift in messaging significantly increased the rate of donations.

In a second experiment, the researchers assessed the effects of these slight changes in framing a charitable message on people’s emotional motivation for making a monetary donation.

Similarly, they found that framing an appeal as “helping people to avoid a loss” rather than “helping people to gain benefits” led to increased intentions to volunteer and be more helpful. Volunteers presented with such “prevention of loss” messages were also more likely to make larger donations to their cause.

“These findings demonstrated a simple, reliable and effective method for charities to significantly increase important helping behaviors,” says Eileen Chou, assistant professor of public policy at University of Virginia’s Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy.

Chronic shortages in US blood banks could be alleviated if just one percent more Americans were to give blood every year, so motivating those additional people could have a profound impact, says Chou, who worked with Professor Keith Munighan of Northwestern University on the study.

“If the helping motivation effects we observed in our study could be replicated at a national scale, the increased blood donations could potentially prevent 250,000 to 300,000 deaths annually.”

After completing the experiments, the authors discovered a recent trend in philanthropy that appears to echo their finding, Chou says.

According to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, the nation’s biggest charities, on average, saw an 11 percent drop in donations in 2010, the worst drop in two decades.

Only four charities among the largest 10 reported increased contributions, and all four framed their fundraising message in terms that focused on their recipients’ losses if help was not forthcoming. For instance, Feed the Children solicited help for people to “prevent them from going hungry.”

“Prospect theory suggests that the pain of losing is about twice as strong as the joy of gaining the same amount,” Chou says.

“By taking advantage of the biasing properties of a loss frame, charities should be able to substantially increase donations and other important helping behaviors, especially life-saving—or, rather, make that death-preventing—behaviors like donating blood.”

Source: University of Virginia

chat1 Comment

You are free to share this article under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported license.

  1. Tony P

    Interesting enough. However in the U.S. they also need to modify or abolish the rules that say immigrants and LGB people can’t donate.

    To illustrate the point – I worked in a place where HALF of us couldn’t vote because we were either LGB, immigrant or combinations thereof.

We respect your privacy.