• Conditional pledges (‘Give if you Win’), esp.

  • Work with EA orgs at universities and in companies; possibly working with 80k hours &/or FoundersPledge, give opportunity for career guidance

• Control: Ask about career goal/target, follow up in 1 year, ask for pledge then

• Treatment: Same but ask initially for conditional pledge (‘if you attain the goal’)

See Give If You Win project (hope to scale up evidence from smaller contexts)

Why list these here? By identifying specific hypotheses (for an academic paper), it will help:

1. Generate ideas for non-profits to test

2. Avoid indecision about what ideas to try

3. Keep those of us with academic publishing incentives motivated

In sum, to give us some direction and focus.

Current ideas for papers are summarized in embedded. The document is divided into:

• one section for each idea we have fleshed out, so far... (at Oct 23, this includes):

  • shared community insight framing

  • Donor responses to “quantitative ‘per dollar’ impact information” and presentations of this (DR added)

  • warm glow (DR: 'internal reward) from effectiveness

• a list of others' ideas and general themes we have yet to flesh out

• some classic ideas we could test (as an alternative to developing novel hypotheses)

Here's the doc:

See, and coalesce ideas from the links below (and more)

Discussion

Here, we propose methods for grouping, organizing, and categorizing these tools for motivating effective giving and action:

1. Theoretical frameworks --> tool categories

2. Certain outcomes are relevant to some tools only

3. Atheoretical 'trying different marketing colors' and tools that push several buttons

Existing categorisation

As well as

Some tools and tests of high-interest (overview, quick presentations)

Nick Fitz: "some quick types of different tests/questions EA orgs are interested in"

• identifiable victims vs statistical (etc), (DR: Some groups have principled objections to presenting identified victims; which ones do not?)

• emotional vs factual/statements,

• videos v images v text,

• positive v negative valence,

• opportunity v obligation,

• cause areas (Not sure what exactly this meant)

• different framings for specific EA orgs

  • e.g., for GWWC they want to test 1% v 10% pledge asks,

  • for CES they want to test saving-democracy v representation messaging,

  • for Humane League they want to test different types of animals, etc)

See discussions of previous work:

• In 'Barriers' synthesis HERE

• HERE (slides -- down arrow to advance)

EA Barriers Synthesis discussion, tool categories

I very briefly discuss particular tools in the Bookdown:

A more organized categorization of barriers can be found in an airtable database (view below), linked to tables of specific tools, theories, barriers, etc. (This can be accessed HERE; it is not the airtable for this project, although we link in some content).

Specific tools

The above table links a set of specific tools, evaluating their relevance for effective giving:

We are considering a narrower set of tools (in a different airtable, the airtable for the current project...

Specific proposed tools/interventions (GWWC focus, adding WIP)