EA Survey 2019 Series: Engagement Levels


  • There are many ways of mea­sur­ing en­gage­ment in EA, from mem­ber­ship of var­i­ous groups to a range of ac­tions such as donat­ing to or work­ing on an EA cause area.

  • Self-re­port­edly highly en­gaged EAs tend to par­ti­ci­pate in a wide va­ri­ety of ac­tivi­ties and be mem­bers of mul­ti­ple EA groups (e.g., lo­cal group, EA Face­book, EA Fo­rum, GWWC)

  • The most com­mon ac­tivi­ties that EAs en­gaged in were donat­ing (81% of EAs), read­ing an EA book (64%), and chang­ing ca­reers based on EA prin­ci­ples (51%).

  • A nar­rower slice of EAs pre­vi­ously worked at an EA or­ga­ni­za­tion (13%), posted on the EA Fo­rum (13%), re­ceived 80,000 Hours ca­reer coach­ing (12%), or cur­rently work at an EA or­ga­ni­za­tion (10%) .

  • Self-re­ported en­gage­ment seems to be well cor­re­lated with ac­tivi­ties un­der­taken and lower lev­els of en­gage­ment were re­lated to non­mem­ber­ship of EA groups (lo­cal group, EA Face­book, EA Fo­rum, GWWC).

  • The ma­jor­ity of EAs who joined 3 or more years ago and are still ac­tive to­day re­port be­ing con­sid­er­ably or highly en­gaged to­day.

  • On the whole, there do not ap­pear to be statis­ti­cally sig­nifi­cant de­mo­graphic differ­ences be­tween differ­ent mea­sures of en­gage­ment in EA.

  • The most im­por­tant pre­dic­tor of a high level of en­gage­ment was mem­ber­ship in the EA Fo­rum, while in­creas­ing time in the EA com­mu­nity also had a strong im­pact on in­creas­ing en­gage­ment.


In re­cent years there has been sig­nifi­cant in­ter­est in the lev­els of en­gage­ment of EAs and in par­tic­u­lar, the most en­gaged mem­bers of the com­mu­nity. The fo­cus and re­sources de­voted to those con­sid­ered “con­trib­u­tors” or “core”(1, 2) are likely very differ­ent to those con­sid­ered part of the EA “net­work”. CEA has noted that the level of in­volve­ment with EA of typ­i­cal ap­pli­cants to EA Globals has risen so much that the typ­i­cal per­son who didn’t get ac­cepted to at­tend has changed from some­one who was barely in­volved with EA to some­one who is prob­a­bly pretty knowl­edge­able about EA and has been in­volved for at least a few years.

It is im­por­tant to state at the out­set that be­ing in­volved in the com­mu­nity by post­ing on the Fo­rum, at­tend­ing lots of events, or work­ing at EA re­lated or­ga­ni­za­tions is not nec­es­sar­ily the same as ded­i­ca­tion to EA or hav­ing the most im­pact.

Here we ex­am­ine how en­gaged in differ­ent ac­tivi­ties are the 2,513 EAs who re­sponded to the 2019 EA Sur­vey. Nat­u­rally, what mea­sure we should use to de­ter­mine the most en­gaged EAs in the sur­vey is con­tro­ver­sial. Any proxy we se­lect will also nec­es­sar­ily be im­perfect as there will al­most cer­tainly be ex­cep­tions to the rule. In this post we ex­am­ine po­ten­tial prox­ies, which may each cap­ture dis­tinct modes of EA in­volve­ment; group mem­ber­ship, ac­tivi­ties, and self-re­ported en­gage­ment.

Mea­sures of engagement

Group Membership

We find rea­son­ably large num­bers of EAs are mem­bers of at least one group (the EA Face­book page, Lo­cal EA groups, the EA Fo­rum, Giv­ing What We Can, LessWrong), but much smaller num­bers are in­volved across mul­ti­ple groups. Just as in the EA Sur­vey data from 2018, we see a high num­ber of EAs re­ported be­ing mem­bers of a lo­cal EA group. This was 907 in­di­vi­d­u­als (43% of EAs in our sam­ple who an­swered a group mem­ber­ship ques­tion),[1] the sec­ond largest group­ing be­hind the EA Face­book group. In the 2019 Lo­cal Group Or­ga­nizer’s sur­vey, 2,144 peo­ple were re­ported to be reg­u­lar at­ten­dees of lo­cal EA group events, and 1,513 mem­bers were re­ported to be highly en­gaged in EA.

72% of re­spon­dents were a mem­ber of at least one of these groups, and al­most 30% were a mem­ber of three or more groups.

Most re­spon­dents who were mem­bers of the EA Fo­rum were also mem­bers of the EA Face­book group (81%) while be­low half (48%) of EA Face­book mem­bers were EA Fo­rum mem­bers. Below we can see that 119 re­spon­dents were mem­bers of the EA Fo­rum but not the EA Face­book page,532 were mem­bers of the EA Face­book page but not the EA Fo­rum, 494 were mem­bers of both the EA Fo­rum and EA Face­book page, 1,386 were not mem­bers of ei­ther.

Just over 65% of Fo­rum mem­bers are mem­bers of lo­cal groups. Among lo­cal group mem­bers, 44% are also mem­bers of the EA Fo­rum.

EA Face­book and EA lo­cal groups were the two groups with the largest mem­ber­ship within our sam­ple and while there was sub­stan­tial over­lap, many EAs who were mem­bers of EA Face­book were not mem­bers of a lo­cal group and vice versa.

Un­like in last year’s EA Sur­vey data, where our sam­ple con­tained similar num­bers of EA Fo­rum and LessWrong mem­bers but low rates of over­lap be­tween the two groups, 60% of LessWrong mem­bers were also mem­bers of the EA Fo­rum, though only about 38% of EA Fo­rum mem­bers were also mem­bers of LessWrong. This makes some sense since our aim was to pri­mar­ily sam­ple EAs, not LessWrong mem­bers. The ma­jor­ity of re­spon­dents (1,736, 69%) were mem­bers of nei­ther the EA Fo­rum nor LessWrong.


We asked re­spon­dents to se­lect which ac­tivi­ties they have en­gaged in from a pre-set se­lect-all-that-ap­ply list. There ap­pears to be a clear nar­row­ing of modes of en­gage­ment, with many EAs hav­ing read an EA book, made an EA dona­tion or ca­reer change, but far fewer post­ing on the EA Fo­rum, re­ceiv­ing 80,000 Hours ca­reer coach­ing, or work­ing at an EA or­ga­ni­za­tion.

81% (1,623) re­ported that they had made a dona­tion in­fluenced by EA prin­ci­ples. 90% of these offered in­for­ma­tion about their dona­tions. The sec­ond most pop­u­lar ac­tivity was read­ing an EA book. There were a set of ac­tivi­ties that a smaller num­ber of sur­vey re­spon­dents re­port hav­ing done. 283 (13%) pre­vi­ously worked at an EA or­ga­ni­za­tion and 207 (10%) cur­rently work at an or­ga­ni­za­tion, with 15% (296) of EAs in the sur­vey cur­rently work and/​or pre­vi­ously worked at an EA or­ga­ni­za­tion. 12% (241) had re­ceived per­sonal ca­reer coach­ing from 80,000 Hours, and 13% (258) had posted on the EA Fo­rum. Th­ese lat­ter four nar­rower ac­tivi­ties do not have a high de­gree of over­lap, with only 2.5% (61) of EAs hav­ing work(ed) at an EA or­ga­ni­za­tion, posted on the EA Fo­rum, and done 80,000 Hours ca­reer coach­ing.

Self-re­ported En­gage­ment Level

This year the sur­vey asked re­spon­dents to rank their level of en­gage­ment in the EA com­mu­nity on a scale from no en­gage­ment to high en­gage­ment, with cer­tain prompts given to provide prox­ies for each level:

  • No en­gage­ment: I’ve heard of effec­tive al­tru­ism, but do not en­gage with effec­tive al­tru­ism con­tent or ideas at all

  • Mild en­gage­ment: I’ve en­gaged with a few ar­ti­cles, videos, pod­casts, dis­cus­sions, events on effec­tive al­tru­ism (e.g. read­ing Do­ing Good Bet­ter or spend­ing ~5 hours on the web­site of 80,000 Hours)

  • Moder­ate en­gage­ment: I’ve en­gaged with mul­ti­ple ar­ti­cles, videos, pod­casts, dis­cus­sions, or events on effec­tive al­tru­ism (e.g. sub­scribing to the 80,000 Hours pod­cast or at­tend­ing reg­u­lar events at a lo­cal group). I some­times con­sider the prin­ci­ples of effec­tive al­tru­ism when I make de­ci­sions about my ca­reer or char­i­ta­ble dona­tions.

  • Con­sid­er­able en­gage­ment: I’ve en­gaged ex­ten­sively with effec­tive al­tru­ism con­tent (e.g. at­tend­ing an EA Global con­fer­ence, ap­ply­ing for ca­reer coach­ing, or or­ga­niz­ing an EA meetup). I of­ten con­sider the prin­ci­ples of effec­tive al­tru­ism when I make de­ci­sions about my ca­reer or char­i­ta­ble dona­tions.

  • High en­gage­ment: I am heav­ily in­volved in the effec­tive al­tru­ism com­mu­nity, per­haps helping to lead an EA group or work­ing at an EA-al­igned or­ga­ni­za­tion. I make heavy use of the prin­ci­ples of effec­tive al­tru­ism when I make de­ci­sions about my ca­reer or char­i­ta­ble dona­tions.

This scale is an im­perfect proxy for en­gage­ment in EA and may not cap­ture di­men­sions such as com­mit­ment or ded­i­ca­tion to EA. The items listed as ex­am­ples in each cat­e­gory also likely cre­ated some bias. For ex­am­ple, peo­ple who live near a lo­ca­tion where in-per­son EA Globals hap­pen more of­ten (Lon­don and San Fran­cisco) are much more likely to be able to iden­tify as con­sid­er­able or high en­gage­ment than some­one equally as en­gaged but ge­o­graph­i­cally fur­ther away or un­able to at­tend for other rea­sons. In­deed, in our post on the ge­o­graphic dis­tri­bu­tion of EAs, we noted that EAs liv­ing out­side of the USA and Europe re­ported the largest shares of non en­gaged or only mildly en­gaged EAs, while EAs liv­ing in the UK had the largest share re­port­ing to be highly en­gaged (31%) and USA EAs made up a plu­ral­ity (38%) of highly en­gaged EAs.

Our anal­y­sis ex­cludes re­spon­dents who an­swered “no” to ei­ther of our two EA screener ques­tions[2] ask­ing about whether they con­sider them­selves an EA so it is per­haps not sur­pris­ing that very few re­spon­dents in our anal­y­sis make up the “No en­gage­ment” cat­e­gory. There were only ~24 re­spon­dents who an­swered no to an EA screener ques­tion and se­lected no en­gage­ment. The bulk (~105) chose mod­er­ately en­gaged in EA so this would not dras­ti­cally change the over­all pic­ture be­low.

Differ­ences in lev­els of en­gage­ment across groups

How do these var­i­ous mea­sures of ac­tivity differ across de­mo­graphic and other group­ings of EAs? The data sug­gests male EAs in the sur­vey are more likely to re­port mak­ing an EA dona­tion, post­ing on the EA fo­rum, and be­ing mem­bers of the EA Fo­rum and LessWrong than fe­male EAs. Those iden­ti­fy­ing as white are more likely to re­port donat­ing also. Younger EAs and those who have been en­gaged in the move­ment at least 3 years and still re­main ac­tive to­day are likely to be more en­gaged than older and newer EAs. For the sake of sim­plic­ity and clearer illus­tra­tion we pre­sent here only the most in­ter­est­ing and clear re­sults. For those in­ter­ested, more de­tails and ta­bles are available here.

Time in EA

Those who have been in­volved in EA 8 or more years ap­pear es­pe­cially more likely to be highly en­gaged to­day than newer EAs. The ma­jor­ity of EAs who joined 3 or more years ago and are still ac­tive in the com­mu­nity re­port be­ing con­sid­er­ably or highly en­gaged now. To the ex­tent that this data can shed light on how long it takes for peo­ple to be­come highly en­gaged in EA, it sug­gests af­ter 3 years most EAs that re­main in the move­ment con­sider them­selves very en­gaged. We can also see that there is a trend to­wards higher en­gage­ment that peaks at around 5 years in. There are ~15% of EAs who re­port hav­ing first heard of EA 9 or more years ago but are now only mildly or not en­gaged in EA.

If we cat­e­gorised those who se­lected 1-3 or 4-5 on the en­gage­ment scale as “low” or “high” in en­gage­ment re­spec­tively, as in our anal­y­sis in this post , we can see that high en­gage­ment EAs make up smaller shares of newer co­horts than older co­horts. It may be that many of these low en­gage­ment EAs in the more re­cent co­horts will be­come more highly en­gaged af­ter 3 or so years. This may also not be so sur­pris­ing if one as­sumes that EAs who joined 5 or more years ago and did not be­come highly en­gaged sim­ply dropped out of the move­ment and so do not ap­pear in the sur­vey. For more re­search on at­tri­tion rates in EA see our ear­lier posts here and here.


How di­verse are the most en­gaged EAs? Since the EA Sur­vey pop­u­la­tion is ma­jor­ity male it is not sur­pris­ing that the ma­jor­ity of most en­gage­ment cat­e­gories are male. How­ever, there does not ap­pear to be a marked differ­ence in the rates of self-re­ported en­gage­ment lev­els be­tween gen­ders.[3] For ex­am­ple, similar shares of male and fe­male EAs are highly en­gaged.

There ap­pear to be sig­nifi­cant[4] as­so­ci­a­tions be­tween gen­der and mem­ber­ship of the EA Fo­rum and LessWrong. Men ap­pear more likely to re­port be­ing mem­bers of the EA Fo­rum and LessWrong than women. It is some­what no­table that there does not ap­pear to be a sig­nifi­cant differ­ence in mem­ber­ship of lo­cal EA groups be­tween men and women.

We also see that men are more likely to re­port com­ment­ing on the EA Fo­rum or mak­ing a dona­tion than women.[5] As we noted in our ca­reers and skills post, there does not ap­pear to be a differ­ence be­tween the shares of men and women work­ing at an EA or­ga­ni­za­tion.


There is a statis­ti­cally sig­nifi­cant differ­ence in the un­der­ly­ing dis­tri­bu­tions of ages be­tween the differ­ent self-re­ported en­gage­ment lev­els.[6] More en­gaged EAs ap­pear to be younger on av­er­age than less en­gaged EAs. One spec­u­la­tive hy­poth­e­sis to ex­plain this is that younger peo­ple tend to have more free time for what­ever form of en­gage­ment they pur­sue. Stu­dents do ap­pear in higher pro­por­tions among the higher en­gage­ment lev­els than the lower lev­els (29%-36% in lev­els 3 to 5 and 16-19% in lev­els 1 to 2).[7]

There are sig­nifi­cant differ­ences in the av­er­age ages of group mem­bers and non­mem­bers,[8] with most mem­bers be­ing ~2 years younger than non­mem­bers and 6-7 years younger than EAs who re­port be­ing a mem­ber of none of these groups.


EAs iden­ti­fy­ing as white in the sur­vey were more likely to re­port donat­ing ac­cord­ing to EA prin­ci­ples but there were no sig­nifi­cant differ­ences in self-re­ported lev­els of en­gage­ment or group mem­ber­ship be­tween EAs who iden­ti­fied as white and those who did not.


There does seem to be some­what of a nega­tive as­so­ci­a­tion be­tween in­come and higher self-re­ported en­gage­ment lev­els.[9] Limit­ing the anal­y­sis to com­pare only full-time em­ployed non­stu­dents there is a sig­nifi­cant differ­ence in the un­der­ly­ing dis­tri­bu­tions of in­come be­tween the en­gage­ment lev­els, how­ever it does not ap­pear to be a sim­ple lin­ear as­so­ci­a­tion.[10]

Non mem­bers of groups ap­pear to earn more on av­er­age. Fo­rum, Lo­cal group, and Face­book mem­bers ap­pear to earn a sig­nifi­cant amount less than non­mem­bers of these groups re­spec­tively.[11] One might as­sume Giv­ing What We Can mem­bers are more likely to be fol­low­ing an earn­ing-to-give path in a high-pay­ing ca­reer than non­mem­bers. There is no differ­ence in the share of GWWC mem­bers and non­mem­bers who re­ported fol­low­ing an earn­ing-to-give path ca­reer path (38% re­spec­tively) and no statis­ti­cally sig­nifi­cant differ­ence in the av­er­age in­come of GWWC mem­bers and non­mem­bers.

Re­la­tion­ships be­tween mea­sures of engagement

Ac­tivi­ties and engagement

Many of the ac­tivi­ties listed above had cor­re­spond­ing items in the de­scrip­tions of the en­gage­ment lev­els. An ex­am­i­na­tion of the ac­tivi­ties that cor­re­spond to se­lec­tions on the EA en­gage­ment scale illus­trates that those who iden­ti­fied with the high­est en­gage­ment cat­e­gory are likely to have en­gaged in vir­tu­ally all ac­tivi­ties, while those in the lower cat­e­gories are likely to only have made a dona­tion, read an EA re­lated book, and thought about chang­ing their ca­reer path. The en­gage­ment se­lec­tions do ap­pear to cor­re­spond well to the word­ing of the sur­vey. For ex­am­ple, in­di­vi­d­u­als in the high en­gage­ment cat­e­gory were the most likely to have ap­plied for an EA or­ga­ni­za­tion po­si­tion, to be em­ployed by an EA or­ga­ni­za­tion or to be a leader of a lo­cal EA group and the mild en­gage­ment cat­e­gory maps well onto read­ing a book. In­ter­est­ingly, al­though it was not in­cluded in the prompts, in­di­vi­d­u­als with a con­sid­er­able or high en­gage­ment rank­ing were more likely to have posted or com­mented on EA Fo­rum. This is in line with our ex­pec­ta­tions from last year where we se­lected EA Fo­rum mem­ber­ship as the best available proxy for en­gage­ment. In the bar chart be­low the num­ber of re­spon­dents an­swer­ing yes for each en­gage­ment ac­tivity are ar­ranged by en­gage­ment level and stacked on top of each other so the to­tals in each bar ex­ceed the true num­ber of re­spon­dents (1,838 re­spon­dents). This figure serves to illus­trate that more peo­ple are en­gag­ing in more ac­tivi­ties over­all for each sub­se­quent self-re­ported en­gage­ment level.

Some spe­cific ac­tivi­ties ap­pear to be bet­ter pre­dic­tors of en­gage­ment rank­ing than oth­ers. For ex­am­ple, a high per­centage of re­spon­dents across all cat­e­gories re­port mak­ing dona­tions based on EA, so this is a rel­a­tively un­in­for­ma­tive ac­tivity. How­ever, the per­centage of those in the high en­gage­ment cat­e­gory that re­port hav­ing at­tended an EA Global is rel­a­tively large (74%),[12] but close to zero for the mild and mod­er­ate cat­e­gories, so this ac­tivity tends to di­vide the en­gage­ment scale into two groups. This should not be so sur­pris­ing since at­tend­ing an EA Global was speci­fi­cally men­tioned in the de­scrip­tion of the sec­ond high­est level of en­gage­ment so it does not tell us whether at­tend­ing an EA Global makes some­one more en­gaged or whether more en­gaged EAs are more likely to at­tend EA Globals. Other ac­tivi­ties, such as ap­ply­ing for an EA or­ga­ni­za­tion job rise steadily with an in­crease in self-ranked en­gage­ment.

Group mem­ber­ship and engagement

Group mem­ber­ship was less tied to en­gage­ment rank­ing than ac­tivity. In­di­vi­d­u­als in the no en­gage­ment to mod­er­ate en­gage­ment cat­e­gories were more likely to se­lect the “none of the above” cat­e­gory when queried about mem­ber­ship. In­di­vi­d­u­als in the high en­gage­ment cat­e­gory were most likely to be mem­bers of EA Fo­rum, the EA Face­book group and a lo­cal group. Note again that in the bar chart be­low the bars show the num­ber of re­spon­dents in each group stacked on top of each other so the to­tals in each bar ex­ceed the true num­ber of re­spon­dents in each en­gage­ment level.

Group mem­ber­ship and activities

How do EA Fo­rum, EA Face­book, lo­cal group, GWWC, LessWrong mem­bers score across ac­tivi­ties? Un­sur­pris­ingly, EA Fo­rum mem­bers were very likely to have com­mented on the EA Fo­rum (close to 60%). The share of EA Fo­rum mem­bers un­der­tak­ing an ac­tivity was larger than the shares of other groups for al­most ev­ery ac­tivity in fact. Of course, we should re­mem­ber that group mem­ber­ship is not ex­clu­sive and as we noted above many groups have over­lap­ping mem­ber­ship. GWWC mem­bers were very likely to have made an EA dona­tion (more than 80%). EA Fo­rum mem­bers and LessWrong mem­bers were as likely as each other to write a post about EA some­where other than the EA Fo­rum (re­call­ing that 60% of LessWrong mem­bers were Fo­rum mem­bers and 38% of Fo­rum mem­bers were LessWrong mem­bers).

Given these as­so­ci­a­tions can we sim­plify all the mea­sures into 1 or more di­men­sions? Are there dis­tinct modes of be­ing en­gaged or are all the forms of en­gage­ment pretty much just equally as­so­ci­ated with each other and can be con­densed into sim­ply ‘more en­gage­ment’ in gen­eral? We looked for pat­terns and as­so­ci­a­tions through a range of meth­ods: mul­ti­ple cor­re­spon­dence anal­y­sis, (or­dered) lo­gis­tic re­gres­sion and cluster anal­y­sis. Our mul­ti­ple cor­re­spon­dence anal­y­sis di­vided our sam­ple into two clusters and sug­gested 14% of the var­i­ance (a typ­i­cal amount for this type of mul­ti­vari­ate anal­y­sis) in these en­gage­ment scale group­ings could be ex­plained by two di­men­sions that ap­pear to map onto high en­gage­ment in nu­mer­ous ac­tivi­ties for high en­gage­ment EAs and non­mem­ber­ship of EA groups for low en­gage­ment EAs. The other meth­ods also sug­gested that the self-re­ported en­gage­ment scale seems to be well cor­re­lated with ac­tivity ques­tion re­sponses and lower lev­els of en­gage­ment were re­lated to non­mem­ber­ship of groups. The most im­por­tant pre­dic­tor of a high level of en­gage­ment was mem­ber­ship in the EA fo­rum and in­creas­ing time in the EA com­mu­nity had a strong im­pact on in­creas­ing en­gage­ment. For those in­ter­ested, more de­tails on the mod­els are available here.


For those in­ter­ested in fo­cus­ing on the highly en­gaged EAs in the com­mu­nity it seems use­ful to have a mea­sure of this en­gage­ment. We can see that while most EAs en­gage by donat­ing, read­ing, and mak­ing ca­reer de­ci­sions with EA prin­ci­ples in mind there ap­pears to be a de­mar­ca­tion be­tween those in the top two self-re­ported lev­els of en­gage­ment and the rest. Those who con­sider them­selves as be­ing highly en­gaged in EA re­port tak­ing on po­si­tions in lo­cal EA groups and EA or­ga­ni­za­tions and en­gag­ing in the EA Fo­rum and EA events at higher rates than their peers in the move­ment who con­sider them­selves less in­volved. EA Fo­rum mem­ber­ship ap­pears to be the best sin­gle con­crete met­ric we have as­so­ci­ated with en­gage­ment (as mea­sured in this re­port ac­cord­ing to ac­tivi­ties and self-re­ported level of en­gage­ment). On the whole, there is lit­tle ev­i­dence of de­mo­graphic differ­ences in en­gage­ment that we looked at.


The an­nual EA Sur­vey is a pro­ject of Re­think Char­ity with anal­y­sis and com­men­tary from re­searchers at Re­think Pri­ori­ties.

This es­say was writ­ten by Neil Dul­laghan, Kim Cud­ding­ton, and David Moss. Thanks to Ja­son Schukraft and Peter Hur­ford for com­ments.

If you like our work, please con­sider sub­scribing to our newslet­ter. You can see all our work to date here.

Other ar­ti­cles in the EA Sur­vey 2019 Series can be found here.

  1. GWWC mem­ber­ship was asked as a sep­a­rate ques­tion, so the to­tal num­ber of re­spon­dents is the com­bi­na­tion of those who an­swered the group mem­ber­ship ques­tion and those who an­swered the GWWC pledge ques­tion. ↩︎

  2. We in­cluded only those who se­lected “Yes” to both EA screener ques­tions, “Do you broadly sub­scribe to the ba­sic ideas be­hind effec­tive al­tru­ism?”, “Could you, how­ever loosely, be de­scribed as an “Effec­tive Altru­ist”?” and “Yes” to the hon­esty check ques­tion, “Are you giv­ing gen­uine, sincere an­swers?”. There were ap­prox­i­mately 360 re­spon­dents who an­swered “No” to at least one of the EA screener ques­tions, but 40-60% of these did not com­plete the sur­vey. For ease of com­par­i­son with pre­vi­ous sur­veys we con­tinue to ex­clude these re­spon­dents from analy­ses. ↩︎

  3. Kruskall-Wal­lis: chi-squared = 2.327 with 1 d.f. prob­a­bil­ity = 0.1271 chi-squared with ties = 2.509 with 1 d.f. prob­a­bil­ity = 0.1132 ↩︎

  4. chi-squared p<0.05 us­ing bon­fer­roni cor­rected p-val­ues ↩︎

  5. chi-squared p<0.05 us­ing bon­fer­roni cor­rected p-val­ues ↩︎

  6. Me­dian test re­sults Pear­son chi2(4) = 53.9919 Pr = 0.000 ↩︎

  7. Om­nibus sig­nifi­cance test­ing sug­gested a statis­ti­cally sig­nifi­cant as­so­ci­a­tion be­tween stu­dent sta­tus and en­gage­ment level, but this test doesn’t point to what is driv­ing the as­so­ci­a­tion. ↩︎

  8. All welch t-tests p<0.0001 ↩︎

  9. Me­dian ex­act test p<0.0001 ↩︎

  10. Me­dian ex­act test p<0.0001 ↩︎

  11. Welch t-tests on the log of in­come p<0.05 ↩︎

  12. 57% of those who re­ported hav­ing at­tended an EAG self-re­ported be­ing highly en­gaged in EA. ↩︎