Thanks for giving me the opportunity to review this submission again at Stage 2. Overall, this version of the manuscript looks good to me, and it's great to see that most of the replications were successful. I will list my main comments first, which are based on the factors that PCIRR recommends reviewers to focus on at Stage 2. Then below I will list some more minor comments/concerns.

Main comments:

1. Empirical support for overall conclusions: Overall, the conclusions are well-supported by the evidence and the results are reported clearly. A few specific comments:
   1. In general, I think that you could do a little more to explain in plain language what each result means and what the broader implication is for people’s donation preferences. This would be helpful especially in the abstract, but also in the individual results sections. It can be hard to make sense of everything just based on a list of statistical results.
   2. In your waste/overhead replication, it looks like participants allocated much more fairly in study 3 than in studies 1/2. I wonder if you have any ideas why this is. Is it the 0-100 scale vs. the 1-5 scale that matters? Or do you think that specifying how much money remains after overhead in study 3 reduced the size of the effect? Both seem plausible to me.
   3. In the diversification/unequal efficiency scenarios of studies 1 and 3, I’m not sure it is appropriate to label charity B as “less efficient” or “less effective.” Despite having lower EV than charity A, the relative value of these depends on participants’ risk preferences. Spreading resources across 5 projects x 70% chance of success per project might be objectively less risky than concentrating resources in one project x 75% chance of success. Perhaps instead of “less effective” you might consider saying something more specific, like “lower EV.” (Presumably the original article also made this mistake, but it could still be worth clarifying.)
2. Deviations from approved protocol:
   1. The authors note that their original power analyses were conducted with an alpha level of .05, despite preregistering a threshold of .005. They conclude that “However, given that our SESOI of d = 0.2 was an extreme under-estimation, this did not seem to affect our ability to detect effects.” I am not at all concerned that you were underpowered, but I might suggest conducting a post-hoc power analysis anyway to back up this statement (e.g., with an alpha level of .005, what was your power to detect the same effect size? and/or what sample size would you have needed to reach the same level of power?).
3. Data quality checks:
   1. Related to my comment in Stage 1 about potential scale order concerns: I would suggest explicitly stating that the original study didn’t randomize the scale order and that this is why you do not do so. To rule out concerns about order effects, something else you could consider reporting in the supplement is a summary of which effects are directionally consistent with a bias toward the right side of the scale (e.g., waste/overhead, where the lower-waste charity is listed second) vs. which are not (e.g., nationalism, where the local charity is listed first). To be clear, I do not believe that this explains your results, but some readers may share my original concern and so I think it would help to show that you’ve thought about it.
4. Confirmatory vs. exploratory analyses:
   1. The authors do a good job of clearly distinguishing which measures/analyses were primary vs. secondary. For example, they chose to include several measures that were included but not reported in the original article, reporting these in supplementary materials. And aside from the potential confusion of using the term “overhead” for two different effects, one from the original article and one extension, they clearly distinguish which research questions fall under each category.
   2. In the results section, I was unsure whether the additional analyses you report (e.g., the one-way ANOVA testing for differences between locations in the nationalism study 3) were exploratory not. Perhaps specifying within each results section which are which could be helpful.

Minor comments:

1. PCIRR recommends that reviewers check whether authors have included a direct URL to the approved protocol in the Stage 2 manuscript. Just confirming that the link does appear in the manuscript (on page 17).
2. In the abstract, and anywhere else you summarize the general pattern of results, I would suggest being clearer about what each result means (e.g., “people preferred to donate to charities with lower perceived waste (stats), lower past costs (stats), …”), as opposed to simply listing the shorthand names for each result as you currently do.
3. In the study design table, it could be helpful to specify the direction of the “average benefit per dollar” effect. I think lower past costs = higher average benefit per dollar but this is unclear.
4. In some places (e.g., on page 6), you use the word “efficiency” to refer to (presumably) the overall utility of donating. I would suggest not using this word, or perhaps clarifying how you define it early in the manuscript, because my understanding of the “efficiency” of a donation is something closer to the proportion of funds going to programs (vs. overhead).
5. I find it confusing that you use the term “overhead” to refer to both (1) your replication of Baron & Szymanska (2011)’s finding that people prefer to donate to charities with lower overhead and (2) your extension testing whether people prefer to donate when overhead is covered by someone else.
6. Both of these effects would reflect overhead aversion, but to avoid confusion I would suggest labeling the latter just “external funding effect” (i.e., removing “overhead” from the name).
   In table 1, I would suggest replacing the NAs with, for example, hyphens or just leaving these cells blank. The NAs make it difficult to read at a glance.
7. Thanks for mentioning that your sample size is larger than Simonsohn’s recommendation of 2.5x the original.
8. The “measures” starting on page 21 is very clear and helpful. I appreciate seeing the exact wording of each condition.
9. In the diversification with unequal efficiency studies, I would suggest clarifying the logic of how study 2 version 1 tests for a preference for diversification. I realized only after rereading a few times that you are not comparing to the midpoint in this study, but instead comparing to all donations going to the more efficient charity.

Thanks again, and I look forward to seeing this work published!

Amanda Geiser

The authors conduct a series of replications regarding Baron & Szymanska (2011), with a few extensions. They by and large replicate the work of Baron & Szymanska (2011). Interestingly, they find no evidence that people prefer public over anonymous donations.

Re-reading the scenarios in detail, I have a few concerns regarding the wording, and whether participants are fully comprehending them as the researchers intend. For instance, I worry that in the waste/overhead scenario, it may be that some participants think that you need $1,000 per non-overhead money to save 5 lives. If they are thinking this, then they would be right to choose B over A. One way to assess this is to condition Study 3 only on people saving that the “right” allocation is equal? Similarly, in the diversification studies, you can condition results who report the “correct” answer for the impact and/or efficiency questions and then evaluate just those choices. This way, these impact questions would act as a comprehension check and you see whether it is that (a) people just don’t comprehend impact appropriately / people are confused by the scenario or (b) even when people realize the impact consequences, they still don’t donate in accordance with impact (cf. Berman et al., 2018; Caviola et al., 2020). I wonder if it is worth conducting these additional analyses and commenting on them if necessary.

I am suspicious of the external validity of the anonymous donation results. Other work in the marketplace finds an effect of public rewards on donation behavior (e.g., Lacetera & Macis, 2010). One possibility is that social rewards motivates people who would otherwise not donate to charity. That is, people who previously wouldn’t donate become motivated to when reputation is on the line. Additionally, it may be that people who have already agreed to donate may subsequentially pass up the opportunity to go public to signal their motives were pure (c.f., Kirgios et al., 2020). These possibilities are worth discussing.

Minor comments:

Page 8. The Caviola cite does not show this exactly. Rather, it says that people weight overhead over effectiveness in between subject design, but not within subjects designs

References:

Berman, J. Z., Barasch, A., Levine, E. E., & Small, D. A. (2018). Impediments to effective altruism: The role of subjective preferences in charitable giving. Psychological science, 29(5), 834-844.

Caviola, L., Schubert, S., & Nemirow, J. (2020). The many obstacles to effective giving. Judgment and Decision Making, 15(2), 159-172.

Kirgios, E. L., Chang, E. H., Levine, E. E., Milkman, K. L., & Kessler, J. B. (2020). Forgoing earned incentives to signal pure motives. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(29), 16891-16897.

Lacetera, N., & Macis, M. (2010). Social image concerns and prosocial behavior: Field evidence from a nonlinear incentive scheme. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 76(2), 225-237.

--Jonathan Berman