A landmark field experiment published in Management Science answered a question most fundraisers haven't thought to ask. Judd Kessler and Katy Milkman tested whether priming a donor's identity, rather than describing impact or urgency, would change giving rates in large-scale American Red Cross appeals. It did, measurably and consistently. Appeals that activated a donor's identity as a previous giver or as a member of a local community generated significantly more donations than standard asks. Critically, the identity prime worked best when it referenced a facet of self that the donor already held strongly: long-tenured donors responded more to the "previous donor" prime; donors in smaller cities and towns responded more to the community prime. The appeal wasn't selling them on the cause. It was confirming who they already were.

A 2025 meta-analysis published in Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly extended this into a sweeping synthesis of 40 years of research. Chapman and colleagues analyzed 109 effect sizes across 89,570 participants and found a relationship between social identification and charitable giving. Identification with fundraisers showed the strongest effect, followed by identification with beneficiaries, and fellow donors. The findings suggest that one of the strongest and most underused influences on giving is not simply how much someone cares about a cause, but how strongly supporting it fits the person they believe themselves to be.

Meanwhile, a 2025 study in Frontiers in Communication by Crawford and Jackson found that donors who perceive congruence between their ideal charity brand and the actual charity's brand personality give more. What's being aligned isn't marketing aesthetics — it's self-concept. Donors are asking, unconsciously, whether this organization reflects who they aspire to be. Age and emotional stability predicted greater perceived congruence, suggesting that identity-anchored giving deepens over time rather than diluting.

In Neurogiving, I describe how the brain's reward system activates during giving through what researchers call the "warm glow," a response tied to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and the brain's broader system for self-referential processing. What's a bit under-discussed in the book but what I often deep dive on in keynotes, particularly this last week, is how deeply this reward is linked to identity, not just altruism. When someone gives, their brain is doing something beyond evaluating the cause: it's updating the story about who they are. That updating process feels good and that good feeling reinforces the behavior.

This connects directly to how the brain builds habits and identity simultaneously. The habit loop (cue → routine → reward) isn't just behavioral, it's neurologically self-referential. When giving becomes a habit, it also becomes an identity marker. The brain begins to associate "I give to X" with the reward signal, which means any disruption to giving (a missed ask, a lapsed renewal) carries a subtle identity threat. This is why lapsed donors are worth reactivating with identity language, not just re-engagement offers. They haven't just stopped giving; they've let go of a piece of how they understand themselves.

The cross-sector data makes this strikingly concrete. Research on athletic identity offers a useful analogy. A 2023 systematic review in Sports found that athletes with a strong sense of themselves as runners or competitors persist through injuries and setbacks because stopping would mean surrendering part of who they are. They do not run only because they feel motivated. They run because they are runners.

Long-term donors often behave the same way. Their giving persists because supporting the organization has become part of their self-concept.

Before your next appeal goes out, pull the communication sent to donors before their second gift.

Now ask two questions:

The first gift is often cause-driven. The second is where identity may begin to take root.

If the second appeal looks almost identical to the first such as another story, another need, another impact claim, you may be treating a returning donor like a new prospect.

Try rewriting one paragraph so it acknowledges something true and observable about the donor.

“Your gift helped 50 families” describes impact.

“You stood up when families in this community needed someone” begins to recognize identity.

The distinction is not flattery. It is evidence. The identity claim should be supported by something the donor has actually done.

Research Sources

In Lab Notes Pro

Identity language can deepen loyalty, but it can also feel manipulative when an organization reflects back an identity the donor does not recognize.

This week’s Pro edition shows you how to apply the research without slipping into flattery.

You’ll get:

You’ll also see the experience through the eyes of a loyal donor reading a renewal letter that is grateful, polished, and completely unaware of who she is.