The Identifiable Victim Effect (IVE)
Why a single story drives more generosity than a thousand statistics.
The Data: Individual vs. Group Appeal
Classic studies demonstrate that people respond with more feeling and larger gifts when presented with an appeal focused on **one specific person** (e.g., “Rokia”) compared to an equally urgent appeal using **general statistics** (e.g., “Millions facing poverty”).
Definition of IVE:
The tendency for people to offer greater aid when a specific, identifiable person is observed to be suffering than when the victim is one of a large, anonymous group.
Simulated average gift size based on a study by Small, Loewenstein, and Slovic (2007).
The IVE Psychological Flow
The contrast is between two neural pathways: the fast, emotional System 1 (Individual) and the slow, calculating System 2 (Statistical).
➜
➜ PATHWAY A: **ACTION (Increased Donation)**
Pathway B often leads to **Scope Insensitivity** and feeling overwhelmed, resulting in **Inaction or Smaller Donations**.
B The Problem of Scope Insensitivity
A major consequence of IVE is that the perceived value of saving **one life** is not multiplied when the stakes increase to **two or three lives**. Donors are often ‘insensitive’ to the scope (size) of the tragedy.
The marginal value of saving additional lives rapidly diminishes in the emotional response.
E Efficacy and Control
IVE works because it gives the donor a strong sense of *efficacy*—the feeling that their specific donation **will solve that specific problem**.
-
The Drop-in-the-Bucket Effect:
When presented with 10,000 victims, a donor feels their gift is insignificant, even if it could help 10 of them. This leads to **zero giving**.
-
The Solution:
Campaigns must clearly define the *subset* of the problem the donor can solve (e.g., “Your $20 covers a week of meals for this family”).
THE SCIENCE OF GIVING
Bridging the “Intention-Action Gap” with Behavioral Psychology
The Intention-Action Gap
The biggest challenge in fundraising isn’t a lack of generosity; it’s the disconnect between wanting to give and actually doing it. Behavioral science reveals a stark drop-off between Intention (the desire to help) and Action (completing the donation).
Key Insight:
Humans are “cognitive misers.” Even high motivation can be derailed by minor friction or lack of a specific prompt. The gap represents lost potential for social impact.
Representative data illustrating the typical drop-off in charitable engagement funnels.
Why We Give
Donating isn’t a purely rational economic calculation. It’s an emotional and social act driven by deep psychological needs. Understanding these drivers allows fundraisers to design campaigns that resonate rather than guilt-trip.
- ❤️ Warm Glow Effect
- 🤝 Social Connection
- 🛡️ Identity & Values
The 5 Core Motivators
Relative influence of psychological factors on donation decisions.
Friction vs. Fuel
To bridge the gap, we must minimize Friction (barriers that make giving hard) and maximize Fuel (psychological nudges that encourage action).
Choice Overload
“Too many funds to choose from…”
Process Complexity
“Why do I need to create an account?”
Unclear Impact
“Where does the money actually go?”
Defaults & Anchoring
Suggesting amounts (e.g., £20) reduces cognitive load.
Goal Proximity
“We are 90% of the way there!” creates urgency.
Social Proof
“Join 5,000 others in your area.”
A The Identifiable Victim Effect
People are more likely to give to a single, relatable individual than to a faceless group (“statistical victims”). Empathy triggers action; statistics trigger analysis.
B The Power of Anchoring
When donors are unsure how much to give, they look for cues. Suggesting higher initial amounts (“Anchors”) significantly increases average donation size without reducing participation.