Does Cognitive Dissonance relate to Donor Dissonance?
According to Mark Ward from Clemson University, the author of, “Donor
Dissonance”: Applying Cognitive Dissonance Theory to Charitable Giving Behavior
and Donor Relations” Cognitive Dissonance does play a role in Donor Dissonance.
Ward studied this theory by conducting research asking, “Can donors feel “postdonation” dissonance just as consumers feel post-purchase dissonance?". He
claimed this could account for predicting donor satisfaction and future giving.
One of the findings is that response rates are higher when mailings are used.
This encourages prospective donators to donate to one’s company. Without the
mailings one may have never thought to donate because they hadn’t heard about
their company. Donors want to donate to places where they feel they are getting the
most out of their donation. In other words knowing that their money is used wisely.
Donors are hesitant to donate if they feel otherwise. Mailings help reduce their
dissonance by giving them information about what they have donated to and how
much profit their donation has made. Ward says, “such satisfaction may yield higher
rates of repeat donations and donor upgrades”.
According to Ward 1 in 4 Americans donates less than $100 per year. A huge
portion of the donators are young adults ages 18-24. He states, “Since those who
don not donate in their youth are less likely to begin doing so as they mature,
studying factors that cause “donor dissonance” and then ascertaining how this
dissonance can be preempted or relieved will provide information important to the
future of the nonprofit sector”.
Cognitive dissonance originated with Festinger (1957). His definition is as follows,
“the mental distress individuals feel when they “find themselves doing things that
don’t fit with what they know, or having opinions that do not fit with other opinions
they hold” because “for some people, dissonance is an extremely painful and
intolerable thing” they have an aversive drive to replace the dissonance with
consonance”. These are the three mechanisms he proposed:
1.
Through selective exposure a person can associate with individuals and
consult information that reinforces existing beliefs and avoids disquieting
opinions.
2.
The more that post-decision dissonance is heightened by the importance of
the issue at
Hand—and the longer the delay in deciding among equally appealing alternatives
or the greater the difficulty of reversing the decision—the more individuals will
have a need for reassurance.
3.
Since behavior precedes attitude, Festinger believed, changes in
attitudes are most likely induced when a person acts on the minimal justification
needed to prompt behaviors that run counter to their beliefs. Rather than offering
massive rewards or punishments, lowering the stakes reduces the importance of
the issue and minimizes uneasiness over anticipation of post-decision
dissonance.
According to Ward a four-step process came from this suggesting, “A.
inconsistency in attitude or behavior B. creates dissonance which C. prompts an
attitude change that D. reduces dissonance”. Important to remember though is
the studies conducted have not proven the connection between dissonance
theories to consumer behavior.
Three important things to remember according to Ward are that
purchasing decisions should have these qualifiers; the decision to purchase must
be important, freely made and irreversible. Consumers may be satisfies that
their major purchase performs to their standards but still feel, “dissonant over the
long-term consequences for their financial wellbeing or quality of life”.
To find out how the consumers feel and their opinions focus groups were
created as well as surveys to find this information. A man named Sweeney
conducted this. The focus groups included college students, furniture store
customers. The questions asked were, “Was this a wise purchase?, Did I get a
favorable deal?” Ward writes that Sweeney constructed a scale to measure
dissonance in three dimensions:

The emotional dimension is "a person's psychological discomfort
subsequent to the purchase decision." This dimension encompasses 15 affective
items that measure dissonance by whether the consumer bought a product and
subsequently felt: despair, resentment, self-disappointment, fear, hollowness,
anger, unease, self-recrimination, annoyance, frustration, pain, depression, selfloathing, sickness, and/or agony.

The first cognitive dimension clusters around concerns regarding the
wisdom of the purchase, or "a person's recognition after the purchase has been
made that they may not have needed the product or may not have selected the
appropriate one." Four cognitive items are measured here as the consumer
wonders if he/she "really needs this product," "should have bought anything at
all," "made the right choice," and/or "if I have done the right thing in buying this
product."

The second cognitive dimension clusters around concerns
regarding the deal that the consumer received, or "a person's recognition after
the purchase has been made that they may have been influenced against their
own beliefs by sales staff." Dissonance is gauged by three cognitive items—
whether the purchaser wondered afterwards if "I'd been fooled," "they had spun
me a line," and/or "there was something wrong with the deal I got." The
conclusion Sweeney found was, “High-dissonance” consumers would be less
likely to perceive value in their purchases, less likely to experience product
satisfaction, and less able to evaluate product quality”. Factors Sweeney came
up with were: Emotional, which a consumer had to ask themselves, “After I made
this donation……”. Wisdom of donation, in which the donator recognizes that the
funds they donated may not have been needed and they as themselves, “I
wonder……”. As well as Concern over decision, the donator recognizes that
what they have donated might have been influenced against their own beliefs.
This is where mailings come in to play. By sending surveys through the
mail or email donors have a sense of comfort that their thoughts and opinions are
being heard since there is a computerized tracking system for all media sent this
way. This also helps the fundraisers keep track of who is donating and how
often. This is also a helpful tool for scientists to have the ability to manipulate the
number of variables while conducting their studies for dissonance. According to
Ward the variables are: “Do first-time donors experience more dissonance than
repeat donors? Is dissonance related to the gap between present and previous
donations? (That is, does a donor who previously gave $10 and now gives $100
experience more dissonance than a donor who previously gave $100 and now
gives $150?) Do mail donors experience more dissonance than online donors? Is
there a relationship between dissonance and various elements within the
particular appeal? (For example, did the donor receive a "premium" or thank-you
gift for donating at a certain level?) Finally, a study of donor dissonance could
explore whether givers to advocacy groups or religious organizations, who
presumably have ideological affinities with these groups, experience less
dissonance than donors to philanthropies and charities”.
By measuring dissonance fundraisers have an advantage of knowing how
to reach their donators through media that catches their eye and gives them the
drive to want to donate. People don’t like telemarketers which was found out by
surveys and thus aided in the creation of the, “do not call list”. However people
do invite emails and regular mail to have the ability to voice their opinions. Media
that is used to reel donors in have slogans such as, “Your gift of just ten dollars
will feed a needy child for three months”. This kind of message tells the donor
what their money will result in which gives them more security that what they are
donating is right and feel more comfortable with their decision. Research also
has found that sending thank you letters and/or newsletters showing positive
outcomes of one’s donation have sparked donors’ satisfaction and caused higher
rates of repeated donations.