We have just released the fourth edition of the EA Behavioral Science Newsletter.
Each newsletter curates papers, forum posts, reports, podcasts, resources, funding opportunities, events, jobs and research profiles that are relevant to the effective altruism behavioral science community.
We have 350+ subscribers, and attract 30+ new subscribers each month.
You can read the newsletter in your browser or below.
When are sacrificial harms morally appropriate? Traditionally, research within moral psychology has investigated this issue by asking participants to render moral judgments on batteries of single-shot, sacrificial dilemmas. Each of these dilemmas has its own set of targets and describes a situation independent from those described in the other dilemmas. Every decision that participants are asked to make thus takes place within its own, separate moral universe. As a result, people’s moral judgments can only be influenced by what happens within that specific dilemma situation. This research methodology ignores that moral judgments are interdependent and that people might try to balance multiple moral concerns across multiple decisions.
In the present series of studies we present participants with iterative versions of sacrificial dilemmas that involve the same set of targets across multiple iterations. Using this novel approach, and across five preregistered studies (total n = 1890), we provide clear evidence that a) responding to dilemmas in a sequential, iterative manner impacts the type of moral judgments that participants favor and b) that participants’ moral judgments are not only motivated by the desire to refrain from harming others (usually labelled as deontological judgment), or a desire to minimize harms (utilitarian judgment), but also by a desire to spread out harm across all possible targets.
Transitioning toward plant-based diets can alleviate health and sustainability challenges. However, research on interventions that influence animal-product consumption remains fragmented and inaccessible to researchers and practitioners. We conducted an overview of systematic reviews, also known as a meta-review. We searched five databases for reviews that examined interventions that influence (increase or decrease) the consumption of animal products. We quantitatively summarised results using individual studies’ directions of effect because reviews rarely reported effect sizes of primary studies. Eighteen reviews met inclusion criteria, 12 of which examined interventions intended to decrease animal-product consumption and 6 of which examined interventions intended to increase animal-product consumption. In total, only two reviews conducted quantitative meta-analyses.
Across all reviews, vote counting indicated that providing information on the environmental impact of meat consumption may reduce consumption, with 10 of 11 estimates suggesting reduced consumption (91%, 95% CI [62.3%, 98.4%]; p = .012). Providing information on the health consequences, emphasising social norms, and reducing meat portion sizes also appeared promising, albeit with more limited evidence. Reviews examining interventions that decreased consumption predominately focused on meat (10/12 reviews). Future reviews should conduct quantitative syntheses where appropriate and examine interventions that influence the consumption of animal products other than meat.
Julia Marshall, Anton Gollwitzer, Kellen Mermin-Bunnell, Mei Shinomiya, Jan Retelsdorf & Paul Bloom
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General (2022)
---
Do children, like most adults, believe that only kin and close others are obligated to help one another? In two studies (total N = 1140), we examined whether children (∼5- to ∼10-yos) and adults across five different societies consider social relationship when ascribing prosocial obligations. Contrary to the view that such discriminations are a natural default in human reasoning, younger children in the United States (Studies 1 and 2) and across cultures (Study 2) generally judged everyone—parents, friends, and strangers—as obligated to help someone in need.
Older children and adults, on the other hand, tended to exhibit more discriminant judgments. They considered parents more obligated to help than friends followed by strangers—although this effect was stronger in some cultures than others. Our findings suggest that children’s initial sense of prosocial obligation in social–relational contexts starts out broad and generally becomes more selective over the course of development.
Daryl R. Van Tongeren, C. Nathan DeWall, Don E. Davis & Joshua N. Hook
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General (2022)
---
Research on intellectual humility has grown, but little work has explored its role in moral decisions. Building on recent work on the Veil of Ignorance, we randomly assigned some participants to imagine being part of an existentially-threatening situation that could possibly lead to the greater good for society (i.e. The Human Challenge Experiments [HCE]). We predicted that informing participants that they might be part of such a study (i.e. the veil of ignorance [VOI]) would reduce HCE support, and that this would be amplified among intellectually humble participants.
A preregistered study (N = 1,032) drawn from three samples, including participants from the United States (n = 346), the Netherlands (n = 340), and Hong Kong (n = 346), confirmed our hypothesis. In addition, this effect was pronounced for those high in intellectual humility. This work offers a novel contribution by examining the role of intellectual humility in existentially-relevant moral decisions.
Joel McGuire, Caspar Kaiser & Anders M. Bach-Mortensen
Nature (2022)
---
Cash transfers (CTs) are increasingly recognized as a scalable intervention to alleviate financial hardship. A large body of evidence evaluates the impact of CTs on subjective well-being (SWB) and mental health (MH) in low- and middle-income countries. We undertook a systematic review, quality appraisal and meta-analysis of 45 studies examining the impact of CTs on self-reported SWB and MH outcomes, covering a sample of 116,999 individuals. After an average follow-up time of two years, we find that CTs have a small but statistically significant positive effect on both SWB (Cohen’s d = 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09, 0.18) and MH (d = 0.07, 95% CI 0.05, 0.09) among recipients.
CT value, both relative to previous income and in absolute terms, is a strong predictor of the effect size. Based on this review and the large body of existing research demonstrating a positive impact of CTs on other outcomes (for example, health and income), there is evidence to suggest that CTs improve lives. To enable comparisons of the relative efficacy of CTs to improve MH and SWB, future research should meta-analyse the effects of alternative interventions in similar contexts.
Recent studies have shown that people make more utilitarian decisions when dealing with a moral dilemma in a foreign language than in their native language. Emotion, cognitive load, and psychological distance have been put forward as explanations for this foreign language effect. The question that arises is whether a similar effect would be observed when processing a dilemma in one’s own language but spoken by a foreign-accented speaker. Indeed, foreign-accented speech has been shown to modulate emotion processing, to disrupt processing fluency and to increase psychological distance due to social categorisation. We tested this hypothesis by presenting 435 participants with two moral dilemmas, the trolley dilemma and the footbridge dilemma online, either in a native accent or a foreign accent. In Experiment 1, 184 native Spanish speakers listened to the dilemmas in Spanish recorded by a native speaker, a British English or a Cameroonian native speaker. In Experiment 2, 251 Dutch native speakers listened to the dilemmas in Dutch in their native accent, in a British English, a Turkish, or in a French accent.
Results showed an increase in utilitarian decisions for the Cameroonian- and French-accented speech compared to the Spanish or Dutch native accent, respectively. When collapsing all the speakers from the two experiments, a similar increase in the foreign accent condition compared with the native accent condition was observed. This study is the first demonstration of a foreign accent effect on moral judgements, and despite the variability in the effect across accents, the findings suggest that a foreign accent, like a foreign language, is a linguistic context that modulates (neuro)cognitive mechanisms, and consequently, impacts our behaviour. More research is needed to follow up on this exploratory study and to understand the influence of factors such as emotion reduction, cognitive load, psychological distance, and speaker’s idiosyncratic features on moral judgments.
I worked as a performance psychologist—for example, helping athletes perform under pressure or boards make good decisions in crisis exercises—before transitioning to academic research (for EA-aligned reasons).
What is your research area?
I’ve worked broadly in psychology, health, and education, mostly building aptitudes in evidence-informed decision-making, motivation, and the science of learning and teaching.
What are you planning to focus on in the future?
I agree with arguments that we might be in the most important century, so want to both improve the decision-making of key institutions and increase the pipeline of highly-engaged EAs working on longtermist causes.
Do you want help or collaborators, if so who?
If you’re doing a systematic review or meta-analysis, I’d love to help make it more efficient and robust so you get the best answer, published in the best journal, within the shortest period of time. If you’re trying to create or scale an intervention, I’d love to help you design the online materials and learning environment so you get your message across faithfully, clearly, and persuasively.
I currently have room for collaborators (either industry or academia) on two PhD students: – the first is trying to improve reasoning and decision-making in high-school students, ideally so they’re more open to EA ideas, and – the second is trying to reduce death and disability from strokes (#3 source of DALYs) in low-middle income countries (probably India or China) likely through a train-the-trainer RCT in hospitals.
If you’re interested in either of these areas, or want help on your own systematic review/scalable intervention, please get in touch.
Do you want to share some of your work? EAs try to promote prosocial behaviour but there are also many psychologically controlling memes circulating (e.g., “Conclusion: therefore, if you do not donate to effective charities, you are doing something wrong.” Singer, 2019, The Life You Can Save, p. 44). Our meta-analysis, published in Psychological Bulletin, suggests this is a mistake. Autonomy supportive language would likely lead to more prosocial behaviour: https://psyarxiv.com/e3dfw/
You probably create presentations and videos to teach or showcase your research. This meta-meta-analysis shows how to do it right (published in Review of Educational Research): https://psyarxiv.com/pynzr/
The EA Behavioral Science Newsletter #4
We have just released the fourth edition of the EA Behavioral Science Newsletter.
Each newsletter curates papers, forum posts, reports, podcasts, resources, funding opportunities, events, jobs and research profiles that are relevant to the effective altruism behavioral science community.
We have 350+ subscribers, and attract 30+ new subscribers each month.
You can read the newsletter in your browser or below.
Subscribe here.
The EA Behavioral Science Newsletter
For behavioral researchers interested in effective altruism
🏡 Join our community
Psychologists for EA Facebook group
Researcher directory and Slack [researchers only]
Subscribe to the newsletter
Suggest feedback or content
Volunteer to support the newsletter
📚 Summary
📖 Eighteen publications
📝 Eleven preprints & articles
💬 Twelve forum posts
🎧/🎦 Four podcasts/videos
💰 Three funding opportunities
💼 Three jobs
🗓 Two events
👨🔬 Michael Noetel profiled
📖 Publications
Sequential decision-making impacts moral judgment: How iterative dilemmas can expand our perspective on sacrificial harm
D. H. Bostyn & A. Roets
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (2022)
---
When are sacrificial harms morally appropriate? Traditionally, research within moral psychology has investigated this issue by asking participants to render moral judgments on batteries of single-shot, sacrificial dilemmas. Each of these dilemmas has its own set of targets and describes a situation independent from those described in the other dilemmas. Every decision that participants are asked to make thus takes place within its own, separate moral universe. As a result, people’s moral judgments can only be influenced by what happens within that specific dilemma situation. This research methodology ignores that moral judgments are interdependent and that people might try to balance multiple moral concerns across multiple decisions.
In the present series of studies we present participants with iterative versions of sacrificial dilemmas that involve the same set of targets across multiple iterations. Using this novel approach, and across five preregistered studies (total n = 1890), we provide clear evidence that a) responding to dilemmas in a sequential, iterative manner impacts the type of moral judgments that participants favor and b) that participants’ moral judgments are not only motivated by the desire to refrain from harming others (usually labelled as deontological judgment), or a desire to minimize harms (utilitarian judgment), but also by a desire to spread out harm across all possible targets.
Interventions that influence animal-product consumption: A meta-review
Emily A. C. Grundy et al.
Future Foods (2022)
---
Transitioning toward plant-based diets can alleviate health and sustainability challenges. However, research on interventions that influence animal-product consumption remains fragmented and inaccessible to researchers and practitioners. We conducted an overview of systematic reviews, also known as a meta-review. We searched five databases for reviews that examined interventions that influence (increase or decrease) the consumption of animal products. We quantitatively summarised results using individual studies’ directions of effect because reviews rarely reported effect sizes of primary studies. Eighteen reviews met inclusion criteria, 12 of which examined interventions intended to decrease animal-product consumption and 6 of which examined interventions intended to increase animal-product consumption. In total, only two reviews conducted quantitative meta-analyses.
Across all reviews, vote counting indicated that providing information on the environmental impact of meat consumption may reduce consumption, with 10 of 11 estimates suggesting reduced consumption (91%, 95% CI [62.3%, 98.4%]; p = .012). Providing information on the health consequences, emphasising social norms, and reducing meat portion sizes also appeared promising, albeit with more limited evidence. Reviews examining interventions that decreased consumption predominately focused on meat (10/12 reviews). Future reviews should conduct quantitative syntheses where appropriate and examine interventions that influence the consumption of animal products other than meat.
How development and culture shape intuitions about prosocial obligations
Julia Marshall, Anton Gollwitzer, Kellen Mermin-Bunnell, Mei Shinomiya, Jan Retelsdorf & Paul Bloom
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General (2022)
---
Do children, like most adults, believe that only kin and close others are obligated to help one another? In two studies (total N = 1140), we examined whether children (∼5- to ∼10-yos) and adults across five different societies consider social relationship when ascribing prosocial obligations. Contrary to the view that such discriminations are a natural default in human reasoning, younger children in the United States (Studies 1 and 2) and across cultures (Study 2) generally judged everyone—parents, friends, and strangers—as obligated to help someone in need.
Older children and adults, on the other hand, tended to exhibit more discriminant judgments. They considered parents more obligated to help than friends followed by strangers—although this effect was stronger in some cultures than others. Our findings suggest that children’s initial sense of prosocial obligation in social–relational contexts starts out broad and generally becomes more selective over the course of development.
Intellectual humility and existentially relevant moral decisions
Daryl R. Van Tongeren, C. Nathan DeWall, Don E. Davis & Joshua N. Hook
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General (2022)
---
Research on intellectual humility has grown, but little work has explored its role in moral decisions. Building on recent work on the Veil of Ignorance, we randomly assigned some participants to imagine being part of an existentially-threatening situation that could possibly lead to the greater good for society (i.e. The Human Challenge Experiments [HCE]). We predicted that informing participants that they might be part of such a study (i.e. the veil of ignorance [VOI]) would reduce HCE support, and that this would be amplified among intellectually humble participants.
A preregistered study (N = 1,032) drawn from three samples, including participants from the United States (n = 346), the Netherlands (n = 340), and Hong Kong (n = 346), confirmed our hypothesis. In addition, this effect was pronounced for those high in intellectual humility. This work offers a novel contribution by examining the role of intellectual humility in existentially-relevant moral decisions.
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of cash transfers on subjective well-being and mental health in low- and middle-income countries
Joel McGuire, Caspar Kaiser & Anders M. Bach-Mortensen
Nature (2022)
---
Cash transfers (CTs) are increasingly recognized as a scalable intervention to alleviate financial hardship. A large body of evidence evaluates the impact of CTs on subjective well-being (SWB) and mental health (MH) in low- and middle-income countries. We undertook a systematic review, quality appraisal and meta-analysis of 45 studies examining the impact of CTs on self-reported SWB and MH outcomes, covering a sample of 116,999 individuals. After an average follow-up time of two years, we find that CTs have a small but statistically significant positive effect on both SWB (Cohen’s d = 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09, 0.18) and MH (d = 0.07, 95% CI 0.05, 0.09) among recipients.
CT value, both relative to previous income and in absolute terms, is a strong predictor of the effect size. Based on this review and the large body of existing research demonstrating a positive impact of CTs on other outcomes (for example, health and income), there is evidence to suggest that CTs improve lives. To enable comparisons of the relative efficacy of CTs to improve MH and SWB, future research should meta-analyse the effects of alternative interventions in similar contexts.
Is There a Foreign Accent Effect on Moral Judgment?
Alice Foucart & Susanne Brouwer
Brain Sciences (2021)
---
Recent studies have shown that people make more utilitarian decisions when dealing with a moral dilemma in a foreign language than in their native language. Emotion, cognitive load, and psychological distance have been put forward as explanations for this foreign language effect. The question that arises is whether a similar effect would be observed when processing a dilemma in one’s own language but spoken by a foreign-accented speaker. Indeed, foreign-accented speech has been shown to modulate emotion processing, to disrupt processing fluency and to increase psychological distance due to social categorisation. We tested this hypothesis by presenting 435 participants with two moral dilemmas, the trolley dilemma and the footbridge dilemma online, either in a native accent or a foreign accent. In Experiment 1, 184 native Spanish speakers listened to the dilemmas in Spanish recorded by a native speaker, a British English or a Cameroonian native speaker. In Experiment 2, 251 Dutch native speakers listened to the dilemmas in Dutch in their native accent, in a British English, a Turkish, or in a French accent.
Results showed an increase in utilitarian decisions for the Cameroonian- and French-accented speech compared to the Spanish or Dutch native accent, respectively. When collapsing all the speakers from the two experiments, a similar increase in the foreign accent condition compared with the native accent condition was observed. This study is the first demonstration of a foreign accent effect on moral judgements, and despite the variability in the effect across accents, the findings suggest that a foreign accent, like a foreign language, is a linguistic context that modulates (neuro)cognitive mechanisms, and consequently, impacts our behaviour. More research is needed to follow up on this exploratory study and to understand the influence of factors such as emotion reduction, cognitive load, psychological distance, and speaker’s idiosyncratic features on moral judgments.
Other recent relevant publications
Let’s Give Together: Can Collaborative Giving Boost Generosity? , Jason D. E. Proux, Lara B. Aknin & Alixandra Barasch, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly (2022)
Obligatory Publicity Increases Charitable Acts, Adelle Yang & Christopher Hsee, Journal of Consumer Research (2022)
On the Value of Modesty: How Signals of Status Undermine Cooperation, Shalena Srna, Alixandra Barasch & Deborah A. Small, Journal of Social Psychology (2022)
The tainted altruism effect: a successful pre-registered replication, Valerie Alcala, Kendra Johnson, C. Steele, Juanshu Wu, Donglai Zhang & H. Pashler, Royal Society Open Science (2022)
What reduces prejudice in the real world? A meta-analysis of prejudice reduction field experiments, Wing Hsieh, Nicholas Faulkner & Rebecca Wickes, British Journal of Social Psychology (2021)
The Temporal Relationship Between Self-Acceptance and Generativity over Two Decades, Mohsen Joshanloo, Journal of Applied Gerontology (2022)
Individual differences in moral judgement predict attitudes towards mandatory vaccinations, Evan Clarkson & John D. Jasper, Personality and Individual Differences (2022)
Thou Shalt not Kill, Unless it is not a Human: Target Dehumanization May Influence Decision Difficulty and Response Patterns for Moral Dilemmas , Hui Bai, Hyun Euh, Christopher M. Federico & Eugene Borgida, Social Cognition (2021)
Developmental changes in perceived moral standing of robots, Madeline G. Reinecke, Matti Wilks & Paul Bloom, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (2021)
Interventions to reduce meat consumption by appealing to animal welfare: Meta-analysis and evidence-based recommendations, Maya B. Mathur, Jacob Peacock, David B. Reichling, Janice Nadlerd, Paul A. Bain, Christopher D. Gardner & Thomas N. Robinson, Appetite (2021)
Sparking Change: Evaluating the effectiveness of a multi-component intervention at encouraging more sustainable food behavior, Joanna Trewerna, Jonathan Chenoweth & Ian Christie Appetite (2022)
Economic evaluation of an online single-session intervention for depression in Kenyan adolescents, A. R. Wasil, C. N. Kacmarek, T. L. Osborn, E. H. Palermo, R. J. DeRubeis, J. R. Weisz & B. T. Yates, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (2021)
📝 Preprints & articles
Moral people are generally happier, Jessie Sun, Wen Wu & Geoffrey P. Goodwin (2022)
Demanding the Morally Demanding: Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Moral Arguments and Moral Demandingness on Charitable Giving, Ben Grodeck and Philipp Schoenegger (2022)
Adjusting for Publication Bias Reveals Mixed Evidence for the Impact of Cash Transfers on Subjective Well-Being and Mental Health, František Bartoš, Maximilian Maier, T. D. Stanley & Eric-Jan Wagenmakers (2022)
Humans First: Why people value animals less than humans, Lucius Caviola, Stefan Schubert, Guy Kahane & Nadira Faber (2022)
Affective forecasting: The challenge of predicting future feelings and the implications for global priorities research [cross-posted to the EA forum], Matthew Coleman (2022)
Human behaviour makes more sense when you understand “Anchor Beliefs”, Spencer Greenberg (2021)
Averting Our Eyes From Meat Consumption & Pandemic Risk [see referenced study], summary by Lukas Jasiunas, study by Kristof Dhonta, Jared Piazzab & Gordon Hodson (2021)
Actively open-minded thinking and the political effects of its absence, Jonathan Baron, Ozan Isler & Onurcan Yilmaz (2022)
Testing Social Media Advertisements for Animal Advocacy, Christopher Bryant, Brian Platt, Anthony Vultaggio & Courtney Dillard (2022)
Has the pandemic changed views on human extinction?, YouGov (2022)
Attitudes Towards Chickens & Fishes: A Study Of Brazil, Canada, China, & India, summary by Zach Wulderk, study by Faunalytics and Mercy for Animals (2022)
💬 Forum posts
What psychological traits predict interest in effective altruism? (Lucius Caviola, David Althaus, Stefan Schubert, and Joshua Lewis)
How big are the intra-household spillovers for cash transfers and psychotherapy? Contribute your prediction for our analysis. (Joel McGuire)
What questions relevant to EA could be answered by surveying the public? (David Moss)
Giving Multiplier after 14 months (Lucius Caviola)
High schoolers were given over $8,000 to donate to charity. Here’s what they chose. (Giving What We Can)
Improving science: Influencing the direction of research and the choice of research questions (Cecilia Tilli)
Ideas from network science about EA community building (Vaidehi Agarwalla)
What are some examples of EA <-> Academia collaborations? (Edo Arad)
The Tipping Point Case for Vegan Advocacy (Karthik Sekar)
Potential Theories of Change for the Animal Advocacy movement (James Ozden)
Cost Effectiveness of Climate Change Interventions (Andrew Richardson)
High School Seniors React to 80k Advice (John Buridan)
🎧/🎦 Audio-visual
Andrew Yang on our very long-term future, and other topics most politicians won’t touch (80,000 Hours)
How many minds do you have? (Spencer Greenberg with Kaj Sotala)
Is cash the best way to help the poor? (Julia Galef with Michael Faye)
Earning to Give (Sam Harris with Sam Bankman-Fried)
💰 Funding
Open Philanthropy is funding academics for the development of EA-adjacent university courses and providing early-career funding for individuals interested in improving the long-term future
A list of EA funding opportunities by Michael Aird
The FTX Future Fund is funding a range of research opportunities.
See EA funds for other opportunities
💼 Jobs & volunteering
Effective Thesis is hiring for a Communications Manager [closes 15th March]
‘Should We Studio’ is hiring a Research Assistant for EA aligned video content [closes TBA]
The Happier Lives Institute has a Summer Research Fellowship [closes 20th March]
See the EA internship board for volunteering and internship opportunities
See the 80000 Hours Job board, and the Effective Altruism Job Postings Facebook group for EA job opportunities
See Habit Weekly’s jobs board for behavioral science job opportunities
See the Effective Thesis website for coaching, research and supervision opportunities
🗓 Events
CSER have a public seminar: “The More Who Die, the Less We Care” by Paul Slovic and Scott Slovic (15th March, 6:00pm GMT)
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF THE FUTURE: A Virtual Mini-Conference – Call for Submissions [closes 16th March]
See EA global for future events
👨🔬 Researcher profile
What is your background?
I worked as a performance psychologist—for example, helping athletes perform under pressure or boards make good decisions in crisis exercises—before transitioning to academic research (for EA-aligned reasons).
What is your research area?
I’ve worked broadly in psychology, health, and education, mostly building aptitudes in evidence-informed decision-making, motivation, and the science of learning and teaching.
What are you planning to focus on in the future?
I agree with arguments that we might be in the most important century, so want to both improve the decision-making of key institutions and increase the pipeline of highly-engaged EAs working on longtermist causes.
Do you want help or collaborators, if so who?
If you’re doing a systematic review or meta-analysis, I’d love to help make it more efficient and robust so you get the best answer, published in the best journal, within the shortest period of time.
If you’re trying to create or scale an intervention, I’d love to help you design the online materials and learning environment so you get your message across faithfully, clearly, and persuasively.
I currently have room for collaborators (either industry or academia) on two PhD students:
– the first is trying to improve reasoning and decision-making in high-school students, ideally so they’re more open to EA ideas, and
– the second is trying to reduce death and disability from strokes (#3 source of DALYs) in low-middle income countries (probably India or China) likely through a train-the-trainer RCT in hospitals.
If you’re interested in either of these areas, or want help on your own systematic review/scalable intervention, please get in touch.
Do you want to share some of your work?
EAs try to promote prosocial behaviour but there are also many psychologically controlling memes circulating (e.g., “Conclusion: therefore, if you do not donate to effective charities, you are doing something wrong.” Singer, 2019, The Life You Can Save, p. 44).
Our meta-analysis, published in Psychological Bulletin, suggests this is a mistake. Autonomy supportive language would likely lead to more prosocial behaviour: https://psyarxiv.com/e3dfw/
You probably create presentations and videos to teach or showcase your research. This meta-meta-analysis shows how to do it right (published in Review of Educational Research): https://psyarxiv.com/pynzr/
My recent op-ed for Australia’s national broadcaster: https://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-case-for-effective-altruism/13359912
[You can contact Michael at michael.noetel[at]acu.edu.au]
---
Want to be profiled? Submit a profile here
🏡 Join our community
Psychologists for EA Facebook group
Researcher directory and Slack [researchers only]
Subscribe to the newsletter
Suggest feedback or content
Volunteer to support the newsletter
Creators:
Peter with help from Matt, Riley, Jacob, Jonas, Kai, & Lucius
--
Previous editions:
1, 2, 3