The Chronicle of Philanthropy recently reported on some interesting research that has emerged about what motivates people’s giving.

Scholars have found that fund-raising appeals do best when they are crafted around a single gripping image, informing donors about big gifts that their peers have contributed helps expand giving, and holding an athletic marathon – or even a walk over smoldering coals – might do more to encourage donations than a picnic or gala ball.

A quick expansion on these findings and summary of the article- A single picture of an impoverished person was more effective in getting donations than the same picture with stats or a picture with two impoverished people. People who were told that another person gave a large gift just prior to them were more likely to give more, up to a point, than if they were not informed. People will pay more to do something strenuous for a cause than a pleasant activity. One person’s research actually found that people gave more after putting their hands in ice water.

So what are the implications for the arts? Well, first off I should issue the caveat one of the researchers gave, while physical discomfort may be effective for raising money to succor those who live uncomfortable lives, it may not motivate people “…to support an art museum or the Girl Scouts of the USA.” That is actually the next avenue of research in which some intend to pursue.

What the research does suggest is that donors like to have a personal connection with what ever they support. The article mentions penpal programs and an ability to socialize with the beneficiaries can be effective. I know some arts organizations engage in adopt an actor or dancer programs already so that is a possibility.

I remember reading a blog or article mentioning some negative aspects in to these programs though. I have a vague recollection that it had something to do with the performers feeling like commodities. You also run the risk of having some performers, (or pieces of art if a gallery tries this), being more prestigious than others. I know of an acting conservatory that encouraged donors to “adopt” their students and the elephant in the room was often that some sponsored students were in better roles than others or appeared on the more prestigious stage.

One thing in the realm of personal connections I found interesting was the idea that non-profits often underestimated how committed people might be if they lacked a personal connection to a cause.

“Rebecca Ratner, an associate professor of marketing at the University of Maryland at College Park, found that some charities expressed doubt that potential volunteers without a personal tie to the cause could be serious and committed.

“Don’t underestimate how much people care about your organization, even if they don’t have a personal connection to it,” she said.”

One of the things the researchers noted was that people like to spread their money out among a number of causes rather than invest it in fewer causes. They suggested giving people various ways to support a single cause in your organization may be a way to tap into this inclination.

“A donor who supports a single charity by sponsoring a child, paying for school supplies, and supporting advocacy may feel more satisfied than a supporter who gives the same amount to a single program within the organization…”

What seemed to be a core concern for all donors is that an entity in need was realizing the fullest benefit possible from their giving. People would rather have a program inefficiently use their money than to have it devoted to overhead like administration and marketing.

After spotting a mention of the list in a New York Magazine book review of economist Tyler Cowen’s new book, I searched Cowen’s blog to see if he had included his tips for visiting an art museum there. (Presumably the list is in his book, too.)

The entry appeared about two years ago. The impetus for writing on the subject, a post on Two Blowhards blog, actually has some interesting commentary about different people’s styles for moving around a museum.

Cowen’s post is a little more pragmatic attempting to strip away any pretense in one’s relationship to the art itself.

“A key general principle is to stop self-deceiving and admit to yourself that you don’t just love “art for art’s sake.” You also like art for the role it plays in your life, for its signaling value, and for how it complements other things you value, such as relationships and your self-image. It then becomes possible for you to turn this fact to your advantage, rather than having it work against you. Keeping up the full pretense means that you must impose a high implicit tax on your museum-going. This leads you to restrict your number of visits and ultimately to resent the art and find it boring.”

As cynical as it may sound, it might be the most honest way of approaching art, be it visual or performing, that I have heard. I have yet to attempt embracing this view in practice.

He offers a couple suggestions about experiencing visual art that can make the encounter interesting for novices including trying to decide which work in each room you might take home and why and going with other people to see it through their eyes.

He also gives people permission not to like what they see noting that many museums display “large numbers of second-rate paintings by first-rate artists. Try to find them. Don’t think it is all great, it isn’t.”

A museum probably wouldn’t be well served by having docents pass these last bit of instructions on to tour groups. Some of the other exercises he and other suggest would probably make the experience even more engaging. Intimating that each work is more masterful than the last is probably confusing and ultimately alienating to people who are pretty sure it simply is not so.