We like opportunities that enhance our positive sense of self/ego status and that give us the opportunity to be viewed positively by others.
We react negatively to a suggested action — even if it’s to our benefit — if we feel it limits our freedom or we’re being pushed into a decision.
Use heuristics sensitively and in context. Reactance describes a desire to maintain our autonomy and feel that we are making a free choice. If we feel we are being pushed or conned, we’ll react strongly. Decision science techniques shouldn’t be — or appear to be — manipulative to supporters. Unethical uses are called ‘sludge’, as opposed to nudge.
World Vision in Canada introduced a scheme where regular donors committed to having their gift increased by a percentage each year. A small number of donors didn’t seem to appreciate the implication and reacted very negatively when the scheme was implemented. The unhappy donors were not concerned about the amount, but about the idea their autonomy had been infringed.
Tesco, the UK supermarket, introduced a programme to ‘auto-round up’ customer payments on their tills to donate the money to charity. There was a significant pushback. Most customers were in favour of charity gifts, but they didn’t want it done automatically.
Environmental charity Green Earth Initiative launched a campaign to support reforestation. The campaign tried to maximize donations through guilt: images of devastated forests and suffering wildlife plus captions like “Every minute you delay, another tree falls” ; pressure: fundraisers at public events made multiple donation requests to individuals even after an initial ‘no’. There was a major pushback on the techniques.
Reactance in behavioural science refers to the emotional and cognitive response people have when they feel their freedom to choose is being threatened. It’s a kind of psychological pushback, such as when someone feels pressured or manipulated, they often react by doing the opposite of what’s being asked just to reassert their autonomy.
Classic example:
If someone says, “How can you not care about this? You must want to must donate right now!”, a prospect might think: “Oh really? Watch me not.”
Reactance can quietly sabotage your fundraising efforts, especially when communications come across as too forceful, manipulative or guilt-inducing. Here’s how it can show up:
“We urgently need your money now or children will suffer!”
This might make people feel cornered or manipulated, leading to discomfort or refusal even if they care deeply about the cause.
When people feel they aren’t choosing to give, but are being forced or guilted into it, they’re more likely to withdraw, ignore the message, or actively resist.
Heavy-handed social proof (e.g., “Everyone else is giving, why aren’t you?”) might make someone feel pressured and rebel, especially if they value independence.
Here are some science-backed ways to counteract it:
“We’d love your support, if and when it feels right for you.”
This reinforces autonomy and reduces defensiveness.
“You’re free to decide whether or not to give. Either way, we’re grateful for your support.”
This paradoxically increases the likelihood of giving.
Frame the donation as an act of agency, not obligation: “With your help, you can make this possible.”
Letting donors choose what area to support (e.g. “support children’s services” vs. “support the arts programme”) makes them feel more in control.
The team at English National Opera cleverly avoided reactance to seeking gifts post ticket purchase.
They did four things that led to a sign if at increase in a average gift size. See screenshot below.
This combination of three techniques overcame possible reactance after a ticket purchase and led to much higher number of people opting to make the £4 donatio, with that amount set as the default ‘choose your own amount’ which rose from to 1% to 20% of donors.
