Understanding Donors Through Data: When Is It Service and When Pressure?

In a study of 121 people at an American university, participants gave on average $2.12 to an identified victim and $1.21 when the matter was presented as a statistic about unnamed victims. Large numbers do not move the heart as one face does; researchers call this the "identifiable victim effect".

Numbers neither suffice nor harm

The study by Deborah Small, George Loewenstein and Paul Slovic, published in 2007, has a more delicate finding than it first appears: when participants were pushed to think in a calculating way, their giving to the identified victim fell and their giving to statistical victims did not rise. Trying to "persuade the mind" with numbers alone may weaken emotion without replacing it. So a dashboard is not enough to understand a supporter; it tells you who gave and when, and not necessarily why.

Giving returns to the giver

Elizabeth Dunn, Lara Aknin and Michael Norton showed in Science in 2008 that spending on others is associated with greater happiness in the spender: in a national survey, in a field study, and in an experiment in which participants were randomly assigned to spend on others or on themselves. This invites an organisation to see in the supporter a partner who receives meaning, not a wallet to be drained.

Does the "gentle nudge" work?

It is commonly said that suggesting a default amount raises donations. The study by Steffen Altmann and colleagues, a working paper from the IZA institute in 2014, tested this in the field on a German donation platform between 2012 and 2013 with 683,910 visitors; the default was set at 10, 20 or 50 euros, or none. The most common chosen amount was the default, but the average donation per visitor stayed between about 1.54 and 1.85 euros with no notable differences, and the donation rate fell slightly at 50 euros (3.23% against 3.35%), at marginal significance. So the gentle nudge may redistribute choices without raising the total, and deserves testing rather than presumption. This is a working paper, and I have not verified that it was published after peer review.

The limit of trustworthiness

When knowledge of a supporter turns into exploiting their moments of weakness or guilt, the tool becomes a betrayal of trust. The Saudi system adds a legal check: according to what Clyde & Co published on the implementing regulations of the Personal Data Protection Law, issued by the Saudi Data and Artificial Intelligence Authority (SDAIA) on 7 September 2023, consent must be freely given and specific to purposes, and explicit for sensitive data and decisions based solely on automated processing. The text of the law and regulations should be reviewed and a legal specialist consulted before implementation.

Giving also has a special dimension in our culture. In the authentic hadith on the seven whom God will shade in His shade: "and a man who gave charity and concealed it so that his left hand did not know what his right hand gave" (agreed upon: al-Bukhari 1423 and Muslim 1031). Some supporters prefer concealment, and it is their right not to be pursued by honour rolls or repeated messages.

What do we do?

• Ask "why", not only "how much": gather reasons from supporters themselves, with their permission.
• Close the impact loop: tell them, honestly and precisely, what their donation achieved.
• Test honestly: compare messages and amounts in small trials declared internally.
• Collect less: necessary data, stated purposes, and an easy way to opt out.
• Respect concealment: make the default that a donor's name is not announced unless they wish it.

Data are a mirror that helps understanding, not possession; trust is earned over time by trustworthiness, and God is the Watcher.