I chose the title of this post carefully … you’ll soon see why.
Here’s a study from the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience at University College London (UCL) which establishes that you and I process negative emotions with greater facility than positive ones. In short, negative information, even when presented subliminally, is better received than positive info.
Says study scientist Nilli Lavie: “There has been much speculation about whether people can process emotional information unconsciously, for example pictures, faces and words. We have shown that people can perceive the emotional value of subliminal messages and have demonstrated conclusively that people are much more attuned to negative words … Clearly, there are evolutionary advantages to responding rapidly to emotional information. We can’t wait for our consciousness to kick in if we see someone running towards us with a knife or if we drive under rainy or foggy weather conditions and see a sign warning ‘danger’.”
Hence, one would surmise, the traditional reliance on negative political advertising. And — dare I say — the "gloom and doom" emphasis of much nonprofit direct response fundraising.
Did we need the study to tell us this, or did we always just feel it in our gut? Or did we just follow the results of our copy testing without particularly caring about the underlying psychodynamics?
I’m conducting a mini-study of my own. I’m planning to compare the open rate for this email delivered post to the norm for The Agitator.
Does "Hate" outperform the norm? Will "I hate this study" outdraw "Your fundraising priorities" … our post with the highest open rate in the past thirty days? What do you predict?
Stay tuned.
Tom
This article was posted in: communications, copywriting, direct marketing, Don't Miss these Posts, email marketing, fundraising, issue fundraising, research.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Hi Tom
Fascinating subject that I feel is pretty unexplored – from my experience in the UK charity sector, we don’t spend much time addressing underlying psychodynamics (OK, well, not deliberately/proactively anyway!)
If we were to consider this particular study further though, I feel we need a better understanding of the relationship between “receiving” and “engaging with” communications. For example, negative language/imagery might be received by individuals more readily and invoke a more pronounced reaction (suitable for acquisition?) but does positive language/imagery perhaps create a greater connection/engagement/longer lasting relationship (so more appropriate for retention?).
I recall some work I did a few years ago with an international charity around incentives. We uncovered through analysis that whilst premium incentives uplifted recruitment, they proved ultimately less valuable over time as donors acquired through incentive were significantly less likely to give again (without further incentive, which meant a large number would never payback on recruitment costs). Which leads to the whole volume vs value debate – does that apply here?
Joe Jenkins
RNIB
UK
Tom–
I think I would have opened “I Love This Study” just as quickly, and certainly I would have opened “I Love This Study” before “Your Fundraising Priorities.” So your comparison may not be adequate. Also, I have been getting your blog for about 4 months (maybe more) and I tend to agree with your opinions so if you shout “I Hate This Study” I want to know why. My guess is the source of the information may have an impact on the response.
Anyway, I love your blog.
Best,
Marie Esposito
Tom, you are so right. In the evolution (in a micro sense) of our culture and the way we cause and react to it, fear has become a great generator in our thoughts and life. Fear (while not all fear, hand in the fire) is not a positive force and over time can develop a pervasive negative environment in which the worst is expected. This tends to degrade the human existence making us more sensitive to things that tear down rather than build up. We no longer want to know what is good about a person but rather their foibles. One is comforted by knowing people may be worse than them. The couch is open.
Tom, you really made me think hard about how to compose headlines that attract attention and pull readers into an article. As a social media blogger (for ThePort Network), I generally try to keep the tone positive and upbeat for every post I write. Including the headline, of course. But now I’m thinking perhaps 100% positive ultimately equals boring. At the least, I will look into shaking things up occasionally with a controversial lead-in. Very interesting post (with a touch of psychology + anthropology). Thank you.
I tested this out today when doorknocking for a politician. When I mentioned negatives (not personal but policy related) about the opposing candidate two out of three voters all of a sudden became energetically supportive of my candidate (the others remained undecided). Positives about my candidate just don’t generate as strong of a reaction for the most part. I agree with the previous post that 100% positive just doesn’t create the necessary tension to make a candidate interesting. Thanks for sharing this study. I love this blog!