💡
EA market testing (public)
  • Introduction/overview
    • Introduction & explanation
    • 👋Meet the team
    • 📕Content overview
    • Progress/goals (early 2023)
      • EAMT progress & results
      • Goals, trajectory, FAQs
  • 🤝Partners, contexts, trials
    • Introduction
    • Giving What We Can
      • Pledge page (options trial)
      • Giving guides - Facebook
      • Message Test (Feb 2022)
      • YouTube Remarketing
    • One For the World (OftW)
      • Pre-giving-tues. email A/B
        • Preregistration: OftW pre-GT
    • The Life You Can Save (TLYCS)
      • Advisor signup (Portland)
    • Fundraisers & impact info.
      • ICRC - quick overview
      • CRS/DV: overview
      • 📖Posts and writings
    • University/city groups
    • Workplaces/orgs
    • Other partners
    • Related/relevant projects/orgs
  • 🪧Marketing & testing: opportunities, tools, tips
    • Testing Contexts: Overview
    • Implementing ads, messages, designs
      • Doing and funding ads
      • Video ads/Best-practice guidelines
      • Facebook
      • Targeted ad on FB, with variations: setup
    • Collecting outcome data
      • Facebook ads interface
        • Pivot tables
      • Google analytics interface
      • Google A/B, optimize interface
      • Reconciling FB/GA reports
      • Survey/marketing platforms
    • Trial reporting template
  • 🎨Research Design, methodology
    • Methods: Overview, resources
    • "Qualitative" design issues
    • Real-world assignment & inference
      • Geographic segmentation/blocked randomization
      • Difference in difference/'Time-based methods'
      • Facebook split-testing issues
    • Simple quant design issues
    • Adaptive design/sampling, reinforcement learning
    • 'Observational' studies: issues
    • Analysis: Statistical approaches
  • 🧮Profiling and segmentation project
    • Introduction, scoping work
    • Existing work/data
      • Surveys/Predicting EA interest
      • Awareness: RP, etc.
      • Kagan and Fitz survey
      • Longtermism attitudes/profiling
      • Animal welfare attitudes: profiling/surveying
      • Other data
    • Fehr/SOEP analysis... followup
      • Followup with Thomas Ptashnik
    • Further approaches in progress
      • Profiling 'existing traffic'
  • 📋(In)effective Altruistic choices: Review of theory and evidence
    • Introduction...
    • The challenge: drivers of effective/ineffective giving
      • How little we know...
    • Models, theories, psych. norms
    • Tools and trials: overview
      • Tools/interventions: principles
      • Outcomes: Effective gift/consider impact)
        • (Effectiveness information and its presentation)
        • (Outcome: Pledge, give substantially (& effectively))
          • (Moral duty (of well-off))
        • Give if you win/ conditional pledge
      • Academic Paper Ideas
  • Appendix
    • How this 'gitbook' works
      • Other tech
    • Literature: animal advocacy messaging
    • Charity ratings, rankings, messages
    • "A large-scale online experiment" (participants-aware)
  • Innovationsinfundraising.org
Powered by GitBook
On this page
  • Who gives effectively? Unique characteristics of those who have taken the Giving What We Can Pledge
  • Tangential: 'Omnibus' lab survey at University of Exeter

Was this helpful?

Edit on GitHub
Export as PDF
  1. Profiling and segmentation project
  2. Existing work/data

Other data

PreviousAnimal welfare attitudes: profiling/surveyingNextFehr/SOEP analysis... followup

Last updated 2 years ago

Was this helpful?

Who gives effectively? Unique characteristics of those who have taken the Giving What We Can Pledge

we focus on individuals who have taken the Giving What We Can Pledge: a pledge to donate at least 10% of your lifetime income to effective charities. In a global survey (N = 536) we examine cognitive and personality traits in Giving What We Can donors and compare them to country-matched controls. Compared to controls, Giving What We Can donors were better at identifying fearful faces, and more morally expansive. They were higher in actively open-minded thinking, need for cognition, and two subscales of utilitarianism (impartial beneficence and instrumental harm), but lower in maximizing tendency (a tendency to search for an optimal outcome). We found no differences between Giving What We Can donors and the control sample for empathy and compassion, and results for social dominance orientation were inconsistent across analyses.

Tangential: 'Omnibus' lab survey at University of Exeter

  • Includes real donation choice question(s), rich survey and psychometric data, including 'mind in the eyes' empathy judgements

  • Students and nonstudents (local town population)

Consider Lown and XX paper... MITE empathy moderates the impact of political attitude, or something ... dissonance resolution Feldman, Ronsky, Lown

mturk + qualtrics

ended up manipulating whether aid was government or charity, and domestic vs foreig; thought those would be moderated by MITE depending on their ideology/attitude? Also consider ... Empathy Regulation and Close-Mindedness Leonie Huddy, Stanley Feldman, Romeo Gray, Julie Wronski, Patrick Lown, and Elizabeth Connors Also asked about domestic welfare and foreign aid attitudes...

sample fairly large ... 1100 or so?

🧮
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pops.12620