FIGURE 4.1. MODEL OF IDENTIFICATION THEORY

      Source: Adapted from Schervish and Havens 1997; 2002.

The core of this model is the idea of communities of participation – that people care most about family members, friends, and those they know well from the communities in which they participate. This may include those joined in attendance at religious services, or shared membership in formal and informal groups. The social relationships formed in these communities prompt shared frameworks, or ways of thinking about the world. These frameworks influence preferences and commitment to causes. When a person identifies with others – that is, they view others as being similar to them, part of “us,” or similar to those they care for – they are likely to help the others by volunteering money, time, or resources (Schervish and Havens 1997; 2002). The first important implication of this idea is that generosity is born not of selflessness, but instead of acting in accordance with values and priorities that are essential to self‐identity. The second implication, and one of direct significance to fundraisers, is that encouraging an expansion of generosity means recognizing and encouraging people's current expressions of care, broadly construed (Schervish and Havens 2002). Another major implication for fundraisers is the importance of engaging potential donors with a cause and with others who support the cause.

Related to this idea, social identity theory helps explain how people identify as members of groups (Turner and Oakes 1986). The tendency to categorize people into groups is a heuristic – a mental shortcut that helps in navigating a complex world. If people see themselves as belonging to a group, that group is an “in‐group”; other groups are “outgroups.” People tend to favor others whom they see as sharing a social identity – belonging to the same “in‐group” (Tajfel and Turner 1979). Applying this idea to fundraising, fundraisers may activate prospective donors' social identities that overlap with others affiliated with the organization. These might include mentioning other donors with similar identities, such as gender (Shang, Reed, and Croson 2008); mentioning a tie to an organization, such as alumni status (Drezner 2009); reminding the donor of their past giving history, and therefore, their status as a donor to the organization (Kessler and Milkman 2018); or encouraging the individual to identify with the group or cause that will directly benefit from the donation (Garvey and Drezner 2013; James III 2017). Fundraisers can also encourage identification with moral identities, such as someone who is “helpful” or “generous.” If these adjectives already describe how an individual would like to think of themselves, a fundraiser can encourage behavior that reflects that identity by recognizing that attribute in the donor (Aquino, Freeman, Reed, Lim, and Felps 2009).

      Encouraging prospective donors to identify with a group can make them more willing to help that in‐group, and to support what others within that group also support (Duclos and Barasch 2014; Hysenbelli, Rubaltelli, and Rumiati 2013). On the downside, this identity activation can also make people more aware of who is not a member of that group and depress their willingness to help outsiders. However, as donors and volunteers become more involved with an organization, their affiliation with the group will become a greater part of how they view their own personal identity (Oyakawa 2015).

      People who spend time together and value their relationship tend to find points of agreement and to share many priorities. Co‐orientation theory explains how people who are within a community of participation will tend to either come to share views and priorities, or step back and spend less time and energy on their mutual relationship (Newcomb 1953, cited in Lindahl 2010). As applied to fundraising, this suggests that peer solicitation – that is, asking an existing donor to help solicit their friends and acquaintances for a cause – is likely to encourage serious consideration on the part of the prospective donor. However, this should not be done lightly. If the gift opportunity is not a good match for the prospective donor, then involving the peer solicitor can potentially damage the friendship.

      Setting the Scene: Symbolic Interactionism and Dramaturgy

      Symbolic interactionism, a framework derived from American pragmatism, has ties to both social psychology and microsociology. It focuses on how people interpret meaning from the objects, people, and situations of life, which then influences their decisions and actions. These meanings develop through social interaction and communication with others (Mead 1934; Schwandt 2007). Language, gestures, and physical objects can all influence the meaning one person takes from a situation, which will affect how they respond.

Dramaturgy uses theater as a metaphor to examine and understand the meaning in social interactions. Using workplaces to observe human behavior, Goffman (1959) explored how situations prompt expected roles, behavior, and expressions. Using a dramaturgical framework, a “front region” is an area or situation that interacts with customers, and a “back region” or “backstage” is a setting that is out of view from customers. Working in a backstage role requires technical expertise, while working in a front region requires expressive skill. Goffman notes that, “… in those interactions where the individual presents a product to others, he will tend to show them only the end product, and they will be led into judging him on the basis of something that has been finished, polished, and packaged” (44). Co‐workers will work as teams to help project this polished impression – putting our best foot forward – which grants the team and its organization legitimacy in the eyes of those observing.

      Applying the precepts of dramaturgy to fundraising yields four key assertions (Hansen 2018).

      Taking these together makes clear the importance of taking the donor's perspective to try to understand how they will interpret communication – the words, the timing, the “costumes,” the “setting,” even the background music. Do all of these align to resonate with the donor's understanding of an important cause, and support their choice to act? It's probably not surprising that one of the metaphors fundraisers commonly use to describe their work is that of the choreographer (Breeze 2017).

A dramaturgical analysis also highlights that a discordant note can ring false with the donor. Something unexpected or out of place can be jarring, disrupting a potential donor's support for a worthwhile cause. For those organizations addressing change and social justice, there is an inherent tension, since