Related to that, here is a post about this lab research which suggests that donor getting more choice potentially reduces their donation rates. Would be interesting to test in the field on an EA charity aggregator like the TLYCS.
Absolutely. Your LinkedIn post outlines the need for some robust ‘real-world’ testing in this area, to supplement the small-stakes Prolific and Mturk samples in the authors use (which I need to read more carefully).
The ‘charity aggregator/charity choice platform’ is one particular relevant environment worth testing on, as distinct from the ‘specific charitable appeal’.
As to the ‘give the donors choice’ in particular, I envision some potentially countervailing things (pros/cons) of giving choice, some of which may be more relevant in a context involving ‘people seriously considering donating’ rather than ‘people asked to do an Mturk/Prolific study.’
Quick thoughts on this...
Cons of enabling choice (some examples): Choice paralysis, raising doubts, repugnance of ‘Sophie’s choice’, departure from ‘identifiable victim’ frame (although I read something recently suggesting that the evidence for the IVE may not be as strong as claimed!), calculating/comparing mindset may push out the empathetic/charitable mindset
Pros: Standard ‘allows better matching of consumer desires and options’, gives stronger sense of tangibility and agency (‘I gave to person A for schoolbooks’) reducing the sense of a futile ‘drop in the bucket’, seems more considerate and respectful of donor, appealing to their ‘wise judgment’
Actually consider this to be one of the more well replicated and evidenced findings. The 2016 meta-analysis HERE: supported it. However, I’ve recently been exposed to something or some discussion that seemed pretty credible suggesting this no longer should be taken as a robust result.
It may have come from metascience2021 (COS etc conference) -- if I dig it up again, I’ll post it and maybe write a twitter on it.
Absolutely. Your LinkedIn post outlines the need for some robust ‘real-world’ testing in this area, to supplement the small-stakes Prolific and Mturk samples in the authors use (which I need to read more carefully).
The ‘charity aggregator/charity choice platform’ is one particular relevant environment worth testing on, as distinct from the ‘specific charitable appeal’.
As to the ‘give the donors choice’ in particular, I envision some potentially countervailing things (pros/cons) of giving choice, some of which may be more relevant in a context involving ‘people seriously considering donating’ rather than ‘people asked to do an Mturk/Prolific study.’
Quick thoughts on this...
Cons of enabling choice (some examples): Choice paralysis, raising doubts, repugnance of ‘Sophie’s choice’, departure from ‘identifiable victim’ frame (although I read something recently suggesting that the evidence for the IVE may not be as strong as claimed!), calculating/comparing mindset may push out the empathetic/charitable mindset
Pros: Standard ‘allows better matching of consumer desires and options’, gives stronger sense of tangibility and agency (‘I gave to person A for schoolbooks’) reducing the sense of a futile ‘drop in the bucket’, seems more considerate and respectful of donor, appealing to their ‘wise judgment’
Thanks—this is very useful. I’ll add it to my post so that more people read!
Where did you read about the research challenging the IVE btw? I’d be interested to read that.
Actually consider this to be one of the more well replicated and evidenced findings. The 2016 meta-analysis HERE: supported it. However, I’ve recently been exposed to something or some discussion that seemed pretty credible suggesting this no longer should be taken as a robust result.
It may have come from metascience2021 (COS etc conference) -- if I dig it up again, I’ll post it and maybe write a twitter on it.