I would suggest editing the title to “contest results” because this isn’t testing a theory with controls in the way a “study” would, but I am known for being a bit of a pedant.
Chris McVey, Josh May, and I had several times tried and failed to write arguments that would be effective in increasing participants’ donation rates. When we presented participants emotionally moving narratives about children who had been rescued by charitable donations, charitable donations were higher than in a control condition—but never when we presented ordinary philosophical arguments that donation is good or is your duty. … We wondered whether the failure might just be the result of our inability to write convincing arguments.
[E]ach of the five selected arguments was viewed by about 335 participants, while 471 participants viewed the middle school science text. The results were clear: All five of the arguments substantially outperformed the control condition.
Presumably the theory is that philosophical argument can(not) increase donations, and it sounds like they had a randomised control in the form of an unrelated text.
Ah sorry, I had heard about the competition from others, heard the quality of writing varied significantly, and so assumed that it wasn’t really a study. My bad!
I would suggest editing the title to “contest results” because this isn’t testing a theory with controls in the way a “study” would, but I am known for being a bit of a pedant.
Presumably the theory is that philosophical argument can(not) increase donations, and it sounds like they had a randomised control in the form of an unrelated text.
Ah sorry, I had heard about the competition from others, heard the quality of writing varied significantly, and so assumed that it wasn’t really a study. My bad!