THE LANGUAGE OF GIVING

THE LANGUAGE OF GIVING – WHY MORAL FRAMING CUTS BOTH WAYS

Every fundraiser knows the power of words. But the latest behavioural science should make us stop and think about the kind of power we’re using.

A recent study of GoFundMe campaigns found something striking (Kim and Hemphill (2025)). Appeals that focussed on harm, injustice, or absence,  in other words, classic negative moral framing, did their job. They pulled in more donors and sparked more conversation. But it wasn’t all good news. The average donation went down.

By contrast, when appeals invoked loyalty, belonging to a group, standing together, looking after our own, the effect was consistently positive. They didn’t just draw people in, they encouraged a steadier and sometimes larger commitment.

This tells us something fundamental about giving.

Negative framing works because humans are wired to react strongly to unfairness and harm. It creates urgency and stirs action. But it doesn’t create depth. It spreads the load across more donors, each giving a little less. Loyalty framing works differently. It appeals to identity. It says this is who we are, this is what we do. And that is much harder to ignore or walk away from.

Breaking the lazy formula

For charities, the temptation to default to harm is understandable. Think of the ‘typical’ charity appeal -  images and words designed to stop people in their tracks. But these also carry the risk of donor fatigue. Constant crisis messaging can make audiences feel the problem is endless or that their contribution will barely touch the sides.

Health charities face a similar challenge. Stories of pain and loss can move people quickly, but they can also leave supporters emotionally drained. Cancer Research UK recognised this over a decade ago, when it began balancing stark statistics with survivor stories, shifting the focus to “this many survive because of you.”

Over time, deficit language diminishes returns. It drives breadth, not depth. And in a world where retention is now more valuable than acquisition, that’s a problem.

The strength of belonging

Loyalty-based appeals tap into something deeper - our need for identity and community. Giving becomes less about fixing a tragedy, more about affirming who you are.

Even climate campaigns are waking up to this. Years of apocalyptic messaging left many people sceptical. But when Extinction Rebellion shifted to language about intergenerational solidarity  “for our children, for our communities”, engagement grew beyond the activist base. Belonging motivates people to act not just today, but tomorrow and the day after.

A new balance for fundraising

The challenge, then, is not to abandon harm-based appeals. Without urgency, there’s no trigger to give. But urgency alone is brittle. What fundraisers need is balance. Show the injustice, then ground the solution in identity - this is happening, and together we can put it right.

Think of it as hybrid moral framing. Lead with the sting of harm, but resolve with the strength of belonging. Instead of “children are sleeping on the floor,” say “no child in Britain should sleep on the floor  and with your support, our community is making sure they don’t.” Instead of “species are in freefall,” say “together we’re turning the tide for nature.”

This isn’t just about semantics. It’s about building generosity that lasts. Negative framing drives the first gift. Loyalty framing sustains the second, the third, the legacy pledge.

The sector’s choice

We believe that the sector is at an inflection point. Donor numbers are shrinking. Competition for attention is fierce. Trust remains fragile. In that context, the words we choose matter more than ever.

Do we focus too much on the crisis, competing to tell the bleakest story? Or do we start telling a different kind of story, one that makes people feel part of something bigger than themselves?

Behavioural science is clear that both harm and loyalty have their place. But it’s the combination that counts. Crisis makes us care. Community makes us stay.

And for charities looking to build not just campaigns but movements, that shift in language could make all the difference.

Reference: Kim, J.E. & Hemphill, L. (2025). The Effects of Moral Framing on Online Fundraising Outcomes: Evidence from GoFundMe Campaigns