Very nice report, and thank you for sharing it here.
I am currently working on a meta-analysis of interventions intended to reduce MAP consumption—first draft published on the forum here. My main question about this paper is: did you all collect (or consider collecting) MAP consumption outcomes? I like the behavioral outcomes you collect, and I think that giving money is not at all a cheap signal. I’d also be interested in whether a week later people are still thinking about it in a way that affects their purchases. (I am guessing that the mTurk-based design made collecting these kinds of follow-up data challenging.)
I noticed you’ve included the default effect in your work. I have some article summaries that might be helpful, especially if you’re still in the process of reviewing additional papers.
In fact, we’re planning to measure actual plant-based choices in our next experiment, so your insights are particularly valuable!
Very nice report, and thank you for sharing it here.
I am currently working on a meta-analysis of interventions intended to reduce MAP consumption—first draft published on the forum here. My main question about this paper is: did you all collect (or consider collecting) MAP consumption outcomes? I like the behavioral outcomes you collect, and I think that giving money is not at all a cheap signal. I’d also be interested in whether a week later people are still thinking about it in a way that affects their purchases. (I am guessing that the mTurk-based design made collecting these kinds of follow-up data challenging.)
Hi Seth, that’s really interesting!
I noticed you’ve included the default effect in your work. I have some article summaries that might be helpful, especially if you’re still in the process of reviewing additional papers.
In fact, we’re planning to measure actual plant-based choices in our next experiment, so your insights are particularly valuable!